-
Well, in view of the lottery, this clearly is at odds with another adjudicator's approach. ::) I really do wonder whether this is a JR issue - as indeed yet another adjudicator said to me a few days ago. Anyway, I useful decision for an upcoming appeal. 8)
-
Final PCN dealt with here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HFrUPGylRoFSWld2VemCsSvA8wmU5exX/view) so the final score is @inst1nct103 14, Haringey nil.
-
That's an excellent result. The Council were really out of order with 14 PCNs for one mistake.
Right on.
-
That's an excellent result. The Council were really out of order with 14 PCNs for one mistake.
On 12 of those I spotted that the appeal code was wrong, which resulted in the tribunal website asking why the appeal is out of time even though it wasn't. I made a screen recording of that and then filed an appeal using the correct appeal code for the Notice of Rejection date, all 12 PCNs have now been DNC'ed, only 1 left.
-
That's an excellent result. The Council were really out of order with 14 PCNs for one mistake.
-
Well the removal case was an interesting one, as I filed the appeal and the authority tried arguing that there is no right to appeal because there is no NoR, I responded by pointing out that the letter of 20 August explicitly states that everything has been carefully considered and the representations have been rejected.
The tribunal reversed its decision and issued a scheduling letter with the following:
The adjudicator has directed that the issue as to whether the Authority's letter dated 20 August 2024 is a Notice of Rejection will be determined as a preliminary issue at the hearing.
The authority responded by DNC'ing the case.
-
Comments noted. I won't pay for the first PCN.
@Enceladus - consolidation makes sense The PCN number is ZN12536367 issued on 31/05/2024 11:14.
Based on comments in the thread, I just sent an appeal letter directly with the image of the PCN receipt paid at the pound all in (text here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/184jOlOJMi25S-maw-ZE8zRRkuaFkbqzf4dBzh8u9WNw/edit)) to the address as a means to challenge. They responded saying it is too late to appeal:
(https://i.imgur.com/PE37wMO.jpeg)
From that point @cp8759 stepped into to represent.
-
@cp8759
You've apparently been helping with that 14th PCN
@Enceladus yes towing PCN is listed for a hearing on 24 October.
I would request a postponement so it can be consolidated with the other 13. Especially as the other 13 appear to pre-date it. And it appears likely to be the PCN referenced in all 13 NoRs as being challenged before an NTO was served. Shows that the Council official doesn't really understand how a challenge and appeal against a PCN & tow is handled, there never would be an NTO.
-
You've already paid for one PCN. The PCN paid at the pound at £65 plus the £200 tow charge. Please dont pay any more for now.
And you need to get an appeal for that paid PCN consolidated with the 13 others. So the Adjudicator has sight of all the PCNs.
Also do you physically have the original copy of PCN 14, the one that your sister paid at the pound?
-
@cp8759
You've apparently been helping with that 14th PCN
@Enceladus yes towing PCN is listed for a hearing on 24 October.
-
@inst1nct103 I would not pay the first PCN, for all you know they might fail to prove any of them.
-
@cp8759 - yes, 13 formal NoRs. Will let you know!
@Enceladus - all of them. I appealed all 13 online and then they issued NtOs for all of them (13) after. To make it a bit clearer here's the breakdown for each PCN:
PCN Number Challenge Received Date Challenge Rejection Date
1 ZN1212851A 01/06/2024 05/07/2024
2 ZN12266976 01/06/2024 05/07/2024
3 ZN12212900 01/06/2024 05/07/2024
4 ZN1235398A 01/06/2024 05/07/2024
5 ZN12354086 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
6 ZN12355191 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
7 ZN12354326 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
8 ZN12354417 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
9 ZN12354552 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
10 ZN12354734 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
11 ZN12411612 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
12 ZN12411827 01/06/2024 08/07/2024
13 ZN12413039 01/06/2024 07/07/2024
@stamfordman - yeah it's something I need to think about. With or without a discount it's just a lot of money quite frankly that I don't have. Yeah I'm really hoping they'll see that the vehicle should have been removed earlier and they show some discretion in removing some of them and keeping others reduced. Based on all the thread comments, I think there is a legitimate case here for some fairness to be exhibited.
I'm just not sure if it's worth paying for PCN 1 and then taking the others to the tribunal? In my view, paying for the first does demonstrate that I did make a mistake in not seeing the email (irrespective of my general issue with council communications around permit reminders) and this is taking ownership of it. But then hoping it further pushes the case that PCN 2-13 essentially all refer to the same contravention and their issuing is an unreasonable response.
-
Discount is on the table so tribunal is potentially risking an extra £845.
I doubt an adjudicator will refuse all of them given the remedy of a tow and the council policy to tow well before this. The adjudicator could also direct/recommend that the discount is reinstated for some or all.
-
@cp8759
There are 14 PCNs. The 13 discussed above and the 14th is for a PCN and removal awaiting an NoR. You've apparently been helping with that 14th PCN?
@inst1nct103
Do you know which of the PCNs the Council are referring to when they say that a challenge was receive from you before the NTO was served?
-
@inst1nct103 so if I understand this rightly you have 13 formal notices of rejection that all give an appeal to the tribunal as the next step?
I could represent you at the tribunal for all of them, but I have not had time to review your case in detail so I cannot tell you what the chances of success are. Drop me an email if you'd like me to represent you for the whole lot.
-
@Incandescent - Understood, thanks for clarifying! I'll be sure to opt for the telephone hearing with that in mind
@Enceladus - yes, so this is dealing with 13 PCNs. The 14th one I am appealing separately, as I didn't officially receive an NoR for that and @cp8759 is helping me out with that one.
I've received a total of 13 NoRs and they all for the 13 PCNs and not the pound one.
I was abroad when my sister called me when she was at the pound getting the car released. They provided a print out of the PCNs as I requested them to do so via the phone, as I wasn't aware of any of them. I then proceeded to go onto the Haringey website and submitted the initial appeal one by one for each of them. It was a somewhat generic appeal and this was before the NtO stage and before I posted on this forum. I only posted on this forum when all 13 had progressed to the NtO stage as at that point I learnt about this forum from a friend.
The missing NtOs did not turn up and they never clarified why in their response. Also the copy they have given in response is the same copy on every one of the 13 PCN NoR letters.
Yes, they all arrived last Tuesday/Wednesday. I decided to open them yesterday as I knew I would need to set aside an evening for this and haven't had a chance since then. 11 of the 13 PCNs have been issued on the 21st and the rest have been issued on the 23rd.
And no need to apologise! Happy to detail anything I can.
PCN Number NoR Received NoR Date
1 ZN1212851A Yes 21/09/24
2 ZN12266976 Yes 23/09/24
3 ZN12212900 Yes 23/09/24
4 ZN1235398A Yes 23/09/24
5 ZN12354086 Yes 23/09/24
6 ZN12355191 Yes 23/09/24
7 ZN12354326 Yes 23/09/24
8 ZN12354417 Yes 23/09/24
9 ZN12354552 Yes 23/09/24
10 ZN12354734 Yes 21/09/24
11 ZN12411612 Yes 23/09/24
12 ZN12411827 Yes 23/09/24
13 ZN12413039 Yes 23/09/24
-
To recap. You are dealing with 13 PCNs which were allegedly served by attaching to the windscreen of your car?
You have one further PCN which was paid at the pound at the discount rate and then handed to your sister when recovering the car? Makes a total of 14 PCNs?
Please confirm how many Notices of Rejection you have now received? Is it 13 or is it 14?
The NoR you have posted refers to PCN ZN12355191 and says that "Futhermore our record confirms that an informal challenge, from yourself was received prior to the service of the Notice to Owner ....." Do you know which PCN they are referring to? Is it ZN12355191. It seems to be one of the 13 PCN and not PCN 14 which is the pound PCN?
Have any of the missing Notices to Owner ever turned up?
The NoR you posted is dated the 23rd September 2024, which is a Monday. When did it actually arrive with you?
And are all the NoRs you've received dated the 23rd September 2024?
My apologies for the tedious questions but I'm just trying to nail down as many of the facts as we can about this unfortunate matter. Not your fault, but your situation has become ludicrously complex.
-
The main advice of this forum is never opt for a decision on the papers alone; these usually end in disaster.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
And that's good to know! The telephone hearing sounds like a much more convenient option.
One option at LT is to not opt for a hearing, either being present at it, or by phone, , but to rely solely on your appeal documents. The adjudicator then just reads the papers of each side and comes to a decision. There is therefore no opportunity at all for the adjudicator to ask questions if he has doubt about something in the appeal. Experience of this forum is that most papers-based appeals are lost, so don't opt for them ! Of course, a hearing, even by telephone is more inconvenient in terms of you have to give your time.
-
The main advice of this forum is never opt for a decision on the papers alone; these usually end in disaster.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
And that's good to know! The telephone hearing sounds like a much more convenient option.
-
No, you don't have to attend any court, the next step is you register an appeal at London Tribunals, where an adjudicator will decide the matter.
Whilst one can attend personally, most people opt for the telephone hearing; the council can attend but usually do not, relying on their evidence pack. The main advice of this forum is never opt for a decision on the papers alone; these usually end in disaster. One of the advisers on here may even offer to represent you.
If you lose at LT, then that is the end of the process.
-
Okay all, it's been a while since I posted and that's because Haringey have taken their time to get back to me.
The short and disappointing news is that they have rejected every appeal and now all the PCNs (13 of them) have progressed to the Notice of Rejection. This time I have received the letters for each one and they all give the details as to why they were rejected. They simply mentioned that I should have been aware of the expiry date of my resident permit, that PCNs may have fallen off due to adverse weather conditions and some filler text about being offered the initial opportunity to pay the reduced fee.
They did not address the lack of delivery for some of the Notice to Owners, the suggested argument for continuous contravention being applied here nor the email I received from the Head of Highways and Parking at Haringey Council, wherein she said that vehicles are typically removed after 3-5 PCNs being issued.
I've attached images here of one of these in order to not flood the entire post with the same copy across all of the PCNs. I have omitted the other pages which are just the forms to fill in to progress this.
(https://i.imgur.com/h3ztusD.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/fsGlynE.jpeg)
As a reminder, I submitted two different appeals.
For PCN 1/13, I tried to appease to their sympathy that I did not see the email. It turns out it arrived into my junk folder and my email client did not pick up on this. I had to go onto GMail to locate it.
For PCN 2-13/13, I use the argument of continuous contravention.
My thoughts/questions:
1. I am considering paying the reduced fare of PCN 1/13, as it was my mistake. Thoughts on this?
2. Despite the reduced rate being offered for PCN 2-13/13, I think it makes sense to appeal this further. @Enceladus also mentioned in the previous post that are some discrepancies in the photos of the PCNs. I will look to see if there are anymore and build the case off this + continuous contravention.
3. I've not done this before so for my understanding, I am assuming this is now going to progress to a hearing where I will need to attend court?
-
OP, what makes this a NoR? The code.
What makes it not a NoR:
It doesn't state the following:
(11) Where an authority does not accept that there are any compelling reasons of a kind mentioned in regulation 11(3)(b), or that any of the grounds specified in regulation 11(4) apply, its decision notice must—
(a)inform R of R’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under regulation 13,
(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and
(c)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal is required to be made.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/12
Pl don't ask why councils can be so stupid!
-
@inst1nct103 by providing a verification code they've shot themselves in the foot, as they have effectively conceded that it is a notice of rejection. This being the case, you've got an open and shut appeal because the notice of rejection is hopelessly flawed.
In the circumstances you can easily win the appeal and get the towing charges refunded, I'm going to drop you a PM in case you'd like to be represented.
-
@H C Andersen hmm, I'm still unsure why that verification code worked on the Tribunals website if this is not a notice of rejection?
To be clear, this was addressed correctly to the family friend that signed off the release for the vehicle at the pound.
Just to confirm, when you say 'appeal', you just mean respond to the letter with what @cp8759 suggested?
-
OP, if it was a Notice of Rejection then cp would have used this term. A Notice of Rejection is a mandated notice with prescribed content.
You have a letter which declines to consider the reps, in fact it's not even addressed to the person who made them.
But you have managed to get through ETA's verification process so submit an appeal now and come back when you have confirmation that it's been registered and been allocated a case number. For now the grounds of 'procedural impropriety' would suffice. You must get confirmation from ETA that an appeal has been registered.
I think cp's suggestion could be put on hold until you have confirmation.
-
@cp8759 - I just tested trying to appeal the PCN on the London Tribunals website. I entered the PCN number, selected the reason for appeal and the verification code worked. I haven't submitted anything, but the fact the verification code worked tells me this is a Notice of Rejection?
Also received this response for the Subject Access Request:
"Thank you for completing our online form.
Before we can proceed with your request, please confirm the following:
What is the vehicle registration number?
Are you requesting for footage for the reception area of the car pound or the outside?
Can you confirm that you would like a copy of the paperwork that was provided to you at the pound when you attended on 1 June 2024?
I can check with the pound if the CCTV footage is still available as most of our CCTV footage is only kept for 28 days. If we have the footage, we would not be able to provide it to you if there are images of other people.
I look forward to your response.
Kindest regards
"
-
Gotcha!
Just to confirm, this isn't a notice of rejection? Under the second black box is a verification code (and the rest are personal details).
On the PCN > Key Events on Haringey's website, it shows
(https://i.imgur.com/LRklm8I.png)
It does say 'Challenge/Representation Rejected' so I guess that doesn't necessarily mean this is a Notice of Rejection. Just want to clarify?
-
So the family friend needs to write back:
Dear London Borough of Haringey,
You did not issue any representations form at the car pound, so I had no way of knowing about the 28 day deadline. Your failure to issue a representations form is a procedural impropriety.
If you are rejecting my representations then please issue a formal notice of rejection.
Yours faithfully,
If they don't issue a proper notice of rejection it's going to be very difficult to get this in front of an adjudicator.
-
Oh really, what am I missing?
It was addressed to family friend.
-
I can make a rep against this but guessing I should wait until the subject access request for the CCTV footage/confirmation of copies given arrives in order to build a case?
No, I don't think you appreciate how perilous your situation is.
Please confirm who this letter is addressed to: the registered keeper, the sister, the friend?
-
@cp8759
So I've received a notice of rejection for the 14th PCN. As a reminder, it was submitted on behalf of the family friend who went along with my sister to collect the vehicle from the pound and they received it in the post today
(https://i.imgur.com/VfwK4ph.jpeg)
I can make a rep against this but guessing I should wait until the subject access request for the CCTV footage/confirmation of copies given arrives in order to build a case?
-
@cp8759 - yeah I thought so too! I just asked my sister why (as I found it a bit strange), but she can't recall why he was asked to sign the release doc despite her paying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But hopefully no issues and will wait back to hear about the SAR. I'll send this off tomorrow and then will start submitting the other reps one by one.
Thanks for the help! Will update on any news..
-
If the family friend signed the release form then I'd take him as being the person who was required to pay, your sister would have technically been acting as his agent.
-
@cp8759 - family friend signed the release doc but my sister actually paid for the transaction with her card (£265).
Are you saying rep needs to come from her (even though the family friend signed for the release and the doc has his name/address)?
Family friend submitted the SAR yesterday.
-
If the family friend actually paid the release fees then that's fine.
If it's your sister who paid for the release of the car, then the representation needs to come from her (unless you provide a letter of authority from her as well, but that's just adding complexity for no reason).
Have your sister and/or the family friend made a subject access request for the CCTV footage from the pound?
-
@cp8759 I've separated it out to here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/184jOlOJMi25S-maw-ZE8zRRkuaFkbqzf4dBzh8u9WNw/edit)
I took on board H C Andersen's comments, but decided to make the rep in first person as family friend (who went along with my sister), rather than me. The letter of authorisation (giving permission) is on the last page.
My goal is to print this out and send it tomorrow.
-
@cp8759 understood. In that case, I've trimmed it down and it is available here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgixF41YaiwuJwiaXhzOLID2JDoc2TdxA2lwnUNGEGU/edit).
Wrong link? I'm still seeing a 10 page document that deals with all of them?
-
I think you're right, according to the OP the only time the car moved was on its way to the pound!
OP, I don't know why you think not telling the council about the whole issue is so important. Their systems would flag up the number of PCNs issued.
IMO, what is essentially a very straightforward situation with 3 types of defence has become very difficult for you to put in writing.
All PCNs - the intro.
PCN 1 - as regards the PCN issued on ***, the first of the 14, my representations are on the grounds that ....the no email argument.
In your separate reps for 2-13 ...as regards the PCN issued on **, the second of the 14, my representations are on the grounds *****that the contravention did not occur ...continuous contravention..with explanation.
PCN 14, my sister collected my car from your pound and despite not being advised of her rights to make reps when the car was delivered to her none the less makes the following reps which she has authorised me to submit on her behalf[see attached authorisation]..procedural impropriety and contravention did not occur. The procedural impropriety naturally follows from her not being provided in writing with details of her right to make representations. What also follows is that these reps are being made beyond the 28 days allowed but, given that this arises solely because she was not advised of her rights, I would hope that the authority would not simply disregard but would consider and, if confident of their position, defend robustly.
That the contravention did not occur follows from the reps I have made to 12 PCNs issued by the council i.e. the contravention was continuous.
But you can't keep going round and round, you have to submit something.
-
All PCNs except one were at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all
again against for essentially the same continuous contravention. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.
I missed the 'except one' earlier - my understanding has been that the car never moved???
-
OP, IMO you have 3 distinct PCN types, it's not one size fits all.
The first = did not receive reminder, unblemished record, pl exercise discretion;
2-13 = continuous contravention, where is the council's authority to issue multiple PCNs when other enforcement methods were available i.e. removing and should have been considered. Why weren't they? Contravention did not occur and Penalty exceeded etc;
14= penalty exceeded because a PCN should not have been issued, other methods should have been considered and implemented earlier; Procedural Impropriety as in you did not provide 'reps' information as required which also = reason for lateness.
@H C Andersen I have a question. So I've got the draft for PCN 2-13 ready and here is an excerpt of it. I'm not sure if I should reference the PCN 1 at all? My thinking is that this is the 'original' PCN, and therefore a reference to it further emphasises that PCN 2-13 are essentially continuous contravention of those?
This is what I have so far:
The Vehicle Should Have Been Removed Sooner (Continuous Contravention)
My car remained in the same place throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024.
All PCNs except one were at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all again against essentially the same continuous contravention. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.
Upon returning to the country, I emailed Ann Cunningham, Head of Highways and Parking, about this situation. She responded (Appendix 1.1):
"...Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner."
Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I would have hoped the council would have carefully considered whether this was the most appropriate approach, especially when other enforcement methods were available.
-
@cp8759 understood. In that case, I've trimmed it down and it is available here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgixF41YaiwuJwiaXhzOLID2JDoc2TdxA2lwnUNGEGU/edit).
-
I think you need to make a standalone letter for PCN 14, rather than mixing it in with everything else. You want to keep it short and simple because you want them to issue a notice of rejection.
-
@John U.K. - thanks, I've noted those last few edits.
@cp8759 - thank you! Didn't know that it would need the person who recovered the vehicle to make the rep..I've made the changes as you've suggested and based on your clarification, I've added to the following doc here here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wgixF41YaiwuJwiaXhzOLID2JDoc2TdxA2lwnUNGEGU/edit).
I want to clarify something. When you say letter of authority, are you referring to the letter I wrote and signed that was used by my sister/family friend to release the vehicle from the impound? Or are you referring to a new letter that gives authorisation to make this rep + be the POC for its correspondence going forward? I assumed the latter and drafted a letter for this in the doc (Appendix 2.1), but let me know if this isn't correct?
-
@John U.K. - I do apologise! The thread is becoming quite long and tracking edits is becoming difficult. I did carefully review your two posts and thought I included them :( I have dedicated Google Doc for this and I would rather prefer linking to that and comments being made there. But not sure if that violates this forum policy @cp8759?
@inst1nct103 not at all, everything that makes things easier is encouraged.
The representation against the removal PCN needs rewording: the right to make representations does not belong to the owner or the registered keeper, that right is vested in the person who was required to pay an amount on recovery of the vehicle under section 101A(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as per regulation 11(1)(a) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/11).
Therefore the representation needs to be made by your relative who recovered the car from the pound, so you need to reword it accordingly and all references to you need to be replaced with referenced to the registered keeper.
So the opening paragraph becomes "From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, the registered keeper was out of the country for work. As a Haringey resident for over five years, the registered keeper consistently held parking permits..."
You want to add details of how the person who recovered the vehicle became aware of the vehicle's removal, any attempts that person made to contact you and so on (that will be written in the first person).
Once you've posted a new draft I will add some wording about the procedural impropriety.
A letter of authority from you should also be provided: it's not required but there is a fair change the council has not read regulation 11(1)(a) and they might issue the notice of rejection to you rather than to the person who made the representation, that would be an additional procedural impropriety.
-
Looks OK to me :)
Remember to add you name & address and the date of the rep.
Use some formatting (bold) etc.
When you're ready to post, post to the address on the back of this final PCN. Post 1st Class at a Post Office counter and obtain a (free) certificate of posting.
P.S. It is 'the pound', not 'the impound'.
P.P.S. If I were you, I'd also ask @cp8759 to run his eye over your latest draft.
-
@John U.K. - thanks! I'll go with attached PDF as you said, especially given there may be a character limit. Given your suggested edits are on the minor end, would you be okay if I just make them without adding here. I'd like my best to bring focus towards the 14th PCN which is on the more urgent end.
@Enceladus - If you have any thoughts on my 14th PCN draft, I would greatly appreciate it!
To make things easier, I've included it below here:
Representation against PCN number ZN12536367
I am writing to make a representation against PCN ZN12536367 issued to me on the 31/05/2024 at 08:08AM.
From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was out of the country for work. As a Haringey resident for over five years, I've consistently held parking permits (October 2023 - 6 Months, May 2023 - 6 Months, and May 2022 - 1 Year) and have always renewed them promptly. Unfortunately, during my absence, my permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall receiving the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.
Due to these circumstances, my car remained stationary in the same location for 61 days without a valid permit. In this period, from May 7, 2024, to May 30, 2024, a total of 13 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued. Twelve of these PCNs cited contravention code 12(i), while one cited code 16. Both codes essentially refer to the absence of a valid permit, indicating a continuous contravention throughout this time.
As I was abroad during this entire time and received no follow-up emails, text messages, or letters, I was completely unaware of these penalties.
The penalties imposed in this case have been excessive, as the vehicle should have been removed much sooner. The principle of 'continuous contravention' is fundamental, stating that one should not be punished multiple times for the same offence. This principle has been upheld by numerous adjudicators, and I believe the Council may already be familiar with it.
Imposing 13 consecutive penalty charge notices is not only disproportionate but also contrary to this principle. Therefore, the application of these multiple penalties for what is essentially a single, continuous contravention is inappropriate and should be reconsidered.
The car was eventually removed by the council on May 31st, following the issuance of one more Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). It is this final PCN that I am appealing in this representation based on the principle of continuous contravention. This principle suggests that this PCN should not have been issued at all. Instead, alternative methods for removing the car should have been considered and implemented much earlier by the council.
I would also like to highlight procedural improprieties at the impound, which resulted in the submission of this delayed representation. These improprieties prevented me from becoming aware of my right to appeal and obtaining information on how to do so.
On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying the removal PCN and release fee. The impound staff provided only two documents: the PCN receipt (Appendix 1.1) and a vehicle removal receipt (Appendix 1.2). No information about my rights to appeal or make representations was given, nor was any documentation explaining how to make representations provided. As a result, I remained unaware of these rights until I sought legal advice.
I am willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. I hope we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.
-
@John U.K. - I do apologise!
No probs - I'm just relieved you took my critique in the spirit in which it was intended.
I'll now work on the rest off-line (I'm still using Lotus WordPro!) and then post the results here.
I also thought just including the list of PCNs, along with the dates directly is better than attaching a separate document showing this.
AFAIK, when Councils provide a box for reps, there is usually a character limit. Besides, using a pdf attachment means you can pre serve all formatting. See my new draft for you when it arrives.
-------------------------------------
Here's my revision of your draft N.B. formatting:
(in the box)
Notice to Owner for PCN number (insert number)
I am making representation against the above NtO issued on (Date). For the reasons outlined in the attached representations, I wish this representation to be considered together with those against the NtOs for the following PCNs (insert list with dates).
(Insert as appropriate: I should point out that this PCN/this NtO was/were not received by me - see attached representations.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(For the attached PDF)
Representations against Notices to Owner for YE08 WYG
I am writing to make a representations against the following Notices to Owner (NTOs) that have been issued against my vehicle (YE08 WYG) to me for the following PCNs (insert complete list of PCNs with dates of both PCN and of NtO for each and 'not received' against PCN/NtO as appropriate) The list as below at the moment is not complete- only 11 in list, should be 13.
____.
ZN12266976,
ZN12353988,
ZN12354086,
ZN12354326,
ZN12354417,
ZN12354552,
ZN12354734,
ZN12355191,
ZN12411612,
and ZN12411827,
and also against PCN ZN12413039, for which (having been paid at the pound) is subject to an additional separate representation I am making representations separately.
I ask for the reps against the above NtOs to be considered together.
Summary of Circumstances
Before explaining the details, I hope the council will consider being flexible and taking my history as a responsible resident into account, along with the unfortunate circumstances that have led to what I believe is an unreasonable and exceeded penalty.
As a Haringey resident for over five years now, I've held three parking permits (October 2023 - 6 Months, May 2023 - 6 Months, and May 2022 - 1 Year) and have always renewed them promptly.
From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was out of the country for work. Unfortunately, during that time, my permit expired on April 25th, and I did not receive the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.
Because of this, my car was without a valid permit for 61 days. This resulted in a continuous stream of parking tickets being issued while I was abroad, without me being aware of this in any way.
The council eventually removed my car on May 31st. On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the car for me, paying the necessary fees for the ticket and the removal.
I understand my car was without a permit, but there isn't much more I could have done here. I feel that potentially having to pay £1690 for being late on my permit renewal is too much. This is especially since I've demonstrated my reliability as a permanent resident with a good permit history and also these essentially all referring to the same continuous contravention.
The Vehicle Should Have Been Removed Sooner - Continuous Contravention
My car remained in the same place throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024.
All PCNs were at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all for essentially the same continuous contravention, as the vehicle was not moved. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.
Upon returning to the country, I emailed (insert name) ___, Head of Highways and Parking, about this situation (Appendix 1.1)(where are the appendices in your draft?). She responded:
"Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner."
Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I would have hoped the council would have carefully considered whether this was the most appropriate approach, especially when other enforcement methods were available.
I would have expected the council to:
1. Have considered the principle of 'continuous contravention'. It is a fundamental principle that one may not be punished more than once for the same offence. Therefore imposing 13 further penalties is not merely disproportionate, it was contrary to this fundamental principle as has been upheld by numerous adjudicators as the Council should be aware.
2. Use its power to remove the vehicle more quickly, or
3. In case of no available space at the pound, communicate with the CEOs to exercise discretion in not issuing more tickets for the same contravention, or
4. Explore other methods of getting in touch with me or removing the vehicle given these unique circumstances.
The excessive number of tickets issued before the car's removal seems unfair, particularly given Ms (name's) acknowledgment that it should have been removed sooner.
Missing NTO Letters
I have now discovered from your website and as can be seen from the list above, I would also like to point out that while the council's website indicates that all 12 NTOs have been issued, as evidenced by the attached screenshots of the Key Events (appendix number) for these PCNs, I have not received all of them through the post.
I would like to inquire why the Key Events for these PCNs show that NTOs have been issued, but they don't appear to have been posted. It's my understanding that NTOs should be posted on the day of issue.
Could the Council please confirm the addresses used for these missing NTOs? This information is crucial to understanding why I haven't received these important documents.
In conclusion, I'm willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. My hope is that we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.
---------------------
Still to work on PCN 14.
-
@John U.K. - I do apologise! The thread is becoming quite long and tracking edits is becoming difficult. I did carefully review your two posts and thought I included them :( I have dedicated Google Doc for this and I would rather prefer linking to that and comments being made there. But not sure if that violates this forum policy @cp8759? It's just this somewhat unique situation involving of a lot of moving pieces, suggested edits, back and forth etc. for what is a longer case (maybe compared to others).
1. Why it is no longer clear what you propose to put in the designated box and what you propose for the pdf attachment? (my idea was that you could attach the same pdf for each PCN, only altering what appeared in the box)
I wasn't sure what you initially wanted to me to add into the box, but now I understand it is the PCN. I thought that the title 'Notice to Owner for PCN number (insert number)' would be sufficient to indicate which PCN was being referred to. I also thought just including the list of PCNs, along with the dates directly is better than attaching a separate document showing this. I've set this up separately on Google Docs so just copy and pasting and replacing the placeholders will be quite easy before submission.
2. Why you have not drafted the list of PCNs in full and appear to have omitted the references to the NtOs with date of issue of each and whether it has been received?
Honestly it was just trying to save space on the forum. [list of PCNs 2-13 with dates] I hoped would be clear enough what would go there. For the dates of the NTOs, the section at the end has the [list of PCN dates & NTOs not received] where I plan to include them.
3. Why have omitted my carefully crafted reference to the 14th PCN?
"For the 14th PCN (ZN12536367), I wish to appeal make a representation but was not made aware of how to make a representation against it."
Is this the line you are referring to? I removed it so based on earlier suggestion of splitting these PCNs reps (1, 2-13, 14) and keep them self-contained. I'm happy to add this back in though..
4. Why you have moved back the sub-heading 'Summary of Circumstances'?
Moved back from/to where? As you can imagine, I'm moving things around as more feedback comes in. Is it important for this heading to be in a specific place?
5. Why you have gone back to 'I don't recall' from the stronger 'I didn't receive'?
Mistake! I'll correct.
6. Why you have removed 'Continuous Contravention' from the sub-heading?
I missed this suggestion from you. I only read the ones highlighted in red, sorry! I will include this in
7. Why you needed to alter my point 1 about continuous contravention?
No particular reason other than just trying to shorted/edit text here and there. I noticed that you specific mentioned '13' so I agree that this has now changed the content moreso. I'll include it back in.
8. Why you have changed 'pound' back to 'impound' the noun is pound?
Changed back
Not harsh at all, I appreciate any time you spend as you are helping me after all!
I've fixed that last type, thanks!
[/list][/list]
-
@John U.K. - Thanks! I've incorporated your earlier suggested edits
But you haven't :( And it took me ages . . . (Please excuse minor rant)
However, I am intrigued: please explain
Why it is no longer clear what you propose to put in the designated box and what you propose for the pdf attachment? (my idea was that you could attach the same pdf for each PCN, only altering what appeared in the box)
Why you have not drafted the list of PCNs in full and appear to have omitted the references to the NtOs with date of issue of each and whether it has been received?
Why have omitted my carefully crafted reference to the 14th PCN?
Why you have moved back the sub-heading 'Summary of Circumstances'?
Why you have gone back to 'I don't recall' from the stronger 'I didn't receive'?
Why you have removed 'Continuous Contravention' from the sub-heading?
Why you needed to alter my point 1 about continuous contravention?
Why you have changed 'pound' back to 'impound' the noun is pound?
Sorry to sound so harsh, but I was trying very hard to make you the strongest possible case, whilst retaining your own style.
I am happy to carry on looking at your drafts, but quite understand if you'd prefer me not to. Incidentall, a small typo in your draft:
All PCNs except one were at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all again against essentially the same continuous contravention.
On reflection, I think this would better read
All PCNs were at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all against for essentially the same continuous contravention, as the vehicle was not moved.
-
Just to clarify, based on earlier feedback, this rep is against PCNs 2-13. To maintain brevity, I'm including a template draft that I will use for each of these. I've added placeholders in areas where I aim to substitute specifics (PCN numbers, dates etc.)
@Enceladus - I've added a section at the end inquiring about the unreceived NTOs. Give this is a collective rep, I've generalised the wording but will actively include/exclude the second line when relevant (specific NTO received/not received) In terms of the V5C, I'm not sure. Either way if they sent some, but did not send others, that's on them..
@John U.K. - Thanks! I've incorporated your earlier suggested edits and look forward to any comments for the 14th PCN draft.
Here is my updated draft for rep against PCN 2-13:
Notice to Owner for PCN [number]
I am writing to make a representation against the Notice to Owner (NTO) that has been issued against my vehicle (YE08 WYG) on [date].
For the reasons outlined in the attached representations, I wish this representation to be considered together with those against the NTOs for the following PCNs:
[list of PCNs 2-13 with dates]
Before explaining the details, I hope the council will consider being flexible and taking my history as a responsible resident into account, along with the unfortunate circumstances that have led to what I believe is an unreasonable and exceeded penalty.
Summary of Circumstances
As a Haringey resident for over five years now, I've held three parking permits (October 2023 - 6 Months, May 2023 - 6 Months, and May 2022 - 1 Year) and have always renewed them promptly.
From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was out of the country for work. Unfortunately, during that time, my permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall getting the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.
Because of this, my car was without a valid permit for 61 days. This resulted in a continuous stream of parking tickets being issued while I was abroad, without me being aware of this in any way.
The council eventually removed my car on May 31st. On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the car for me, paying the necessary fees for the ticket and the removal.
I understand my car was without a permit, but there isn’t much more I could have done here. I feel that potentially having to pay £1690 for being late on my permit renewal is too much. This is especially since I've demonstrated my reliability as a permanent resident with a good permit history and also these essentially all referring to the same continuous contravention.
The Vehicle Should Have Been Removed Sooner
My car remained in the same place throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024.
All PCNs except one were at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all again essentially the same continuous contravention. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.
Upon returning to the country, I emailed [name], Head of Highways and Parking, about this situation. She responded (Appendix 1.1):
"...Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner."
Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I would have hoped the council would have carefully considered whether this was the most appropriate approach, especially when other enforcement methods were available.
I would have expected the council to consider:
- The principle of 'continuous contravention' is fundamental, stating that one should not be punished multiple times for the same offence. This principle has been upheld by numerous adjudicators, and I believe the Council may already be familiar with it.
- In case of no available space at the impound, use their power or consider other options for removing the vehicle earlier and communicating with the CEOs to exercise discretion in the interim
- Explore other methods of trying to get in touch with me
The excessive number of tickets issued before the car's removal seems unfair, particularly given Ms [name] acknowledgment that it should have been removed sooner.
I'm willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. My hope is that we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.
Missing NTO Letters
I would also like to point out that I have not received a total of 9 out of 12 NTOs through the post.
[For this specific PCN [number], I have not received the NTO].
While the council's website indicates that all 12 NTOs have been issued, as evidenced by the attached screenshots of the Key Events for these PCNs, I have not received all of them through the post.
Below is a list detailing which NTOs have and have not been received:
[list of PCN dates & NTOs not received]
I would like to inquire why the Key Events for these PCNs show that NTOs have been issued, but they don't appear to have been posted. It's my understanding that NTOs should be posted on the day of issue.
Could the Council please confirm the addresses used for these missing NTOs? This information is crucial to understanding why I haven't received these important documents.
[/list][/list]
-
My commments in blue - hope that makes things clearer...
@John U.K. - thank you!
Regarding your question about PCN ZN12411827, the code was 16 and reads "Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required". This is essentially the same as code 12r (it seems). I ommited the appendices to save some room, but will make your suggested edits and add them in on the next post.
I have modified that paragraph as follows:
All PCNs except one (ZN12411827) (what was this one for??? Is this relevant to your reps?) were for contravention code 12(i) at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all againstappealing to what is essentially the same continuous contravention. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.
Regarding the 14th PCN, I can see no option on the Haringey website for making a rep against it. I assumed the out-of-time link/form here (https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge-notice/out-of-time) that I filled in here would be sufficient to trigger the ability to reopen it. I sent this via post and so assuming this may take time to receive/process..
CP has suggested above that you send by post. By all means attach a copy of the reps against the 14thPCN and the removal to this rep.
Are you suggesting (which your edit seems) that I appeal it within this rep (which was intended for PCNs 2-13)?the moment given the status is currently 'PCN Complete'.
No, I'm not suggesting anything of the kind, merely painting the full picture and asking that they take that PCN into consideration along with the others. IMHO IF this reaches Tribunal, strong points which may lead to success will be 'failure to consider' 'continuous contravention' and removal against wrong PCN.
On this collective rep, you need to add in Enceladus' point about missing NtOs... probably towards the end.
On your rep for posting, as CP says, needs to be sooner rather than later, so I'll try and goi through your draft for that later today.
-
You have some time available to get this right, bearing in mind that sooner rather than later is better. Please post up here the latest drafts of what you intend to say before you post anything to the Council. Also you should be able to submit the representations on-line, except maybe for PCN 14.
Get screen prints of the Key Events for each of the first 13 PCNs.
I'd be inclined to politely ask the Council in your reps why the Key Events for the 9 PCNs show that Notice To Owners have been issued but don't appear to have been posted? Mention that the NTOs should have been posted on the day of issue. Ask them to confirm the address used on the missing NTOs? And make sure to list the 9 NTOs.
It might annoy them, but clearly something is wrong. Whilst correctly addressed letters might go missing, really they should all have arrived before now, Suggests that that they haven't actually been printed and posted.
Maybe I've missed it but have you said anything in your representations concerning the nine missing NTOs. IMHO you need to include that.
This is to protect your back as you are submitting representations against NTOs that you haven't actually received. However the non-receipt might become relevant at a later date, so you don't want anything that contradicts your assertion that you didn't receive the NTOs. You don't want the Council to be able to claim that you must have received the nine missing NTOs since you submitted representations against them.
If your address on the V5c is 100% correct then it's very hard to explain why nine pieces of post from the same timeframe would be lost by Royal Mail. More likely it results from a problem or failure within the Council, so ask them why they haven't posted the issued NTOs, nice and politely and see what comes back.
-
@cp8759 understood!
Here is my draft to make a rep against the 14th PCN. I've tried my best to give context of the events leading upto it:
Representation against PCN number ZN12536367
I am writing to make a representation against PCN ZN12536367 issued to me on the 31/05/2024 at 08:08AM.
From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was out of the country for work. As a Haringey resident for over five years, I've consistently held parking permits (October 2023 - 6 Months, May 2023 - 6 Months, and May 2022 - 1 Year) and have always renewed them promptly. Unfortunately, during my absence, my permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall receiving the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.
Due to these circumstances, my car remained stationary in the same location for 61 days without a valid permit. In this period, from May 7, 2024, to May 30, 2024, a total of 13 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued. Twelve of these PCNs cited contravention code 12(i), while one cited code 16. Both codes essentially refer to the absence of a valid permit, indicating a continuous contravention throughout this time.
As I was abroad during this entire time and received no follow-up emails, text messages, or letters, I was completely unaware of these penalties.
The penalties imposed in this case have been excessive, as the vehicle should have been removed much sooner. The principle of 'continuous contravention' is fundamental, stating that one should not be punished multiple times for the same offence. This principle has been upheld by numerous adjudicators, and I believe the Council may already be familiar with it.
Imposing 13 consecutive penalty charge notices is not only disproportionate but also contrary to this principle. Therefore, the application of these multiple penalties for what is essentially a single, continuous contravention is inappropriate and should be reconsidered.
The car was eventually removed by the council on May 31st, following the issuance of one more Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). It is this final PCN that I am appealing in this representation based on the principle of continuous contravention. This principle suggests that this PCN should not have been issued at all. Instead, alternative methods for removing the car should have been considered and implemented much earlier by the council.
I would also like to highlight procedural improprieties at the impound, which resulted in the submission of this delayed representation. These improprieties prevented me from becoming aware of my right to appeal and obtaining information on how to do so.
On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying the removal PCN and release fee. The impound staff provided only two documents: the PCN receipt (Appendix 1.1) and a vehicle removal receipt (Appendix 1.2). No information about my rights to appeal or make representations was given, nor was any documentation explaining how to make representations provided. As a result, I remained unaware of these rights until I sought legal advice.
I am willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. I hope we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.
-
If this is the case, where do I do this? Do I add this to the rep I'm planning to make against PCN 1 or 2-13? If not where else can this be done?
I think you need to make a representation by simply sending a letter in the post. The address for making representations will be given on any of the other PCNs / NTOs.
-
@cp8759 I've sent nothing at this point in time as I have no option to send anything for this specific PCN. The only thing that I have done is submitted this out of time TE7 form here (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62bebaeee90e073f56752a86/TE7_0622_save.pdf).
@cp8759 - this one here.
EDIT: I might've misunderstood one of your posts in that it wasn't this form that was meant to be filled in, but rather making a separate rep against the 14th PCN? If this is the case, where do I do this? Do I add this to the rep I'm planning to make against PCN 1 or 2-13? If not where else can this be done?
-
I've submitted the out of time form in the meantime
What out of time form?
-
@cp8759 - that last post was referring to the 14th PCN. I cannot make any representation for this as there is no option to do so (unless you're saying there is somewhere?). I've submitted the out of time form in the meantime, so I assume if that is approved, I will get an opportunity to make a rep.
For the other PCN reps, I agree! I will submit the reps in the next few days.
-
There is the option to Haringey's website (when entering the PCN) to 'Contact Us'. In there, I can make some appeal. But not sure if this is redundant given the above?
An appeal is made to the tribunal after you have a notice of rejection, at this point all you can do is make a representation. I suggest you do so sooner rather than later, the days are passing and at this point there is nothing that justifies further delay.
-
@cp8759 I've sent nothing at this point in time as I have no option to send anything for this specific PCN. The only thing that I have done is submitted this out of time TE7 form here (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62bebaeee90e073f56752a86/TE7_0622_save.pdf).
There is the option to Haringey's website (when entering the PCN) to 'Contact Us'. In there, I can make some appeal. But not sure if this is redundant given the above?
-
Regarding the 14th PCN, I can see no option on the Haringey website for making a rep against it. I assumed the out-of-time link/form here (https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge-notice/out-of-time) that I filled in here would be sufficient to trigger the ability to reopen it. I sent this via post and so assuming this may take time to receive/process..
It's not entirely clear what you have sent in respect of the 14th PCN, a standalone letter is probably required if you've not done that already.
-
@John U.K. - thank you!
Regarding your question about PCN ZN12411827, the code was 16 and reads "Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit where required". This is essentially the same as code 12r (it seems). I ommited the appendices to save some room, but will make your suggested edits and add them in on the next post.
Regarding the 14th PCN, I can see no option on the Haringey website for making a rep against it. I assumed the out-of-time link/form here (https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge-notice/out-of-time) that I filled in here would be sufficient to trigger the ability to reopen it. I sent this via post and so assuming this may take time to receive/process..
Are you suggesting (which your edit seems) that I appeal it within this rep (which was intended for PCNs 2-13)?the moment given the status is currently 'PCN Complete'.
-
Here is my attempt to tidy up your draft:
(in the box)
Notice to Owner for PCN number (insert number)
I am making representation against the above NtO issued on (Date). For the reasons outlined in the attached representations, I wish this representation to be considered together with those against the NtOs for the following PCNs (insert list with dates).
(Insert as appropriate: I should point out that this PCN/this NtO was/were not received by me -see attached representations.)
(For the attached PDF)
Notice to Owner for PCN number ___
I am writing to make a representations against the following Notices to Owner (NTOs) that have been issued against my vehicle (insert Reg Mark)to me for the following PCNs (insert complete list of PCNs with dates of both PCN and of NtO for each and 'not received' against PCN/NtO as appropriate) The list as below at the moment is not complete.
____.
This also appeals 12 other PCNs:
ZN12266976,
ZN12353988,
ZN12354086,
ZN12354326,
ZN12354417,
ZN12354552,
ZN12354734,
ZN12355191,
ZN12411612,
and ZN12411827,
and also against PCN ZN12413039, for which (having been paid at the pound) is subject to an additional separate representation
I am making representations separately.
I ask for the reps against the above NtOs to be considered together.
Summary of Circumstances
Before explaining the details, I hope the council will consider being flexible and taking my history as a responsible resident into account, along with the unfortunate circumstances that have led to what I believe is an unreasonable and exceeded penalty.
As a Haringey resident for over five years now, I've held three parking permits (October 2023 - 6 Months, May 2023 - 6 Months, and May 2022 - 1 Year) and have always renewed them promptly.
From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was out of the country for work. Unfortunately, during that time, my permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall getting did not get the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.
Because of this, my car was without a valid permit for 61 days. This resulted in a continuous stream of parking tickets being issued while I was abroad, without me being aware of this in any way.
The council eventually removed my car on May 31st. On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the car for me, paying the necessary fees for the ticket and the removal.
I understand my car was without a permit, but there isn’t much more I could have done here. I feel that potentially having to pay £1690 for being late on my permit renewal is too much. This is especially since I've demonstrated my reliability as a permanent resident with a good permit history and also these essentially all referring to the same continuous contravention.
The Vehicle Should Have Been Removed Sooner - Continuous Contravention
My car remained in the same place throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024 (Appendix 1.1), often just minutes after 24 hours had passed (don't even raise the subject of 24hours!). For instance, PCNs ___ were issued at 08:20 on 22/05, 08:28 on 24/05, and 08:10 on 25/05.
All PCNs except one (ZN12411827) (what was this one for??? Is thjis relevant to your reps?) were for contravention code 12(i) at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all appealing to what is essentially the same continuous contravention. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.
Upon returning to the country, I emailed (insert name) ___, Head of Highways and Parking, about this situation (Appendix 2.1)(where are the appendices in your draft?). She responded:
"Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner."
Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I would have hoped the council would have carefully considered whether this was the most appropriate approach, especially when other enforcement methods were available.
I would have expected the council to:
1. Have considered the principle of 'continuous contravention'. It is a fundamental principle that one may not be punished more than once for the same offence. Therefore imposing 13 further penalties is not merely disproportionate, it was contrary to this fundamental principle as has been upheld by numerous adjudicators as the Council should be aware.
2. Use its power to remove the vehicle more quickly, or
3. In case of no available space at the pound impound, communicate with the CEOs to exercise discretion in not issuing more tickets for the same contravention, or
4. Explore other methods of getting in touch with me or removing the vehicle given these unique circumstances.
The excessive number of tickets issued before the car's removal seems unfair, particularly given Ms (name's) acknowledgment that it should have been removed sooner.
I'm willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. My hope is that we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.
-
It was essentially a paraphrase from @cp8759's comment here and was only a small box on the out of time form.
I think CP was advising adding an explanation for the late representation to your representation against the 14th PCN and towaway, which you saids were based on the comments of Enceladus and others.. Not asking for permission to make a late representation . . .
Does Haringey have a special form for late reps??
To my mind the need is pressing for a formal late representation against the 14th & removal, so please work on on and show here your draft.
-
@inst1nct103 I think you need to add an out-of-time representation against the removal PCN, and you need to add some wording explaining that because no representations paperwork was provided at the pound you were not aware of your right to make representations, nor were you aware of the 28 day time limit, and you were only alerted to the fact that you could make representations against that PCN when you sought legal advice.
@John U.K. - I'll have to dig it out as I've already submitted it. It was essentially a paraphrase from @cp8759's comment here and was only a small box on the out of time form.
-
Meanwhile, please post up your note to and reply to the Head of Parking and the plea to be allowed to make reps against the final PCN and removal.
-
@John U.K. - thank you for that edit, I'll include that in and make it the first point.
I haven't prepared the draft for the 14th PCN yet, but will post as soon as I have something. I'm quite keen to get these initial reps finalised and out of the door first, given I have just over a week now before the deadline.
-
I've submitted an out of time for the 14th PCN so waiting to hear back from that.
Please post up here what you wrote...
@John U.K. Good point!
Going to add the following to the list:
"4. Consider The principle of 'continuous contravention'. Multiple penalties for the same ongoing issue wasn't the most fair approach and parking adjudicators often support this view."
This is not strong enough. You really do need to spell it out. Try
4. Consider The principle of 'continuous contravention'. It is a fundamental principle that one may not be punished more than once for the same offence. Therefore imposing 13 further penalties is not merely disproportionate, it was contrary to this fundamental principle as has been upheld by numerous adjudicators as the Council should be aware.
I would be inclined to make this point 1.
-------------------
I will follow this up later with a more thorough review of you draft. Meanwhile, please post up your note to and reply to the Head of Parking and the ple to be allowed to make reps against the final PCN and removal.
-
@cp8759 - good shout! I'll get that submitted. That'll be handy as I prepare the rep for the 14th PCN (assuming the out-of-time req gets approved).
-
@inst1nct103 I would make a subject access request to Haringey Council, this needs to be done by the person who got the vehicle out of the pound. The access request needs to specifically ask for:
1) All the CCTV footage from the pound, and
2) A copy of all the paperwork actually supplied to that person at the car pound. This must be copies of the actual paperwork, not the paperwork that is normally supplied in such circumstances.
There is guidance on how to make a subject access request here: https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/getting-copies-of-your-information-subject-access-request/
-
@John U.K. Good point!
Going to add the following to the list:
"4. Consider the principle of 'continuous contravention'. Multiple penalties for the same ongoing issue wasn't the most fair approach and parking adjudicators often support this view."
-
Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I would have hoped the council would have carefully considered whether this was the most appropriate approach, especially when other enforcement methods were available.
You need to spell out the principle of 'continuous contravention'. It is a fundamental principle that one may not be punished more than once for the same offence. Therefore imposing 13 further penalties is not merely disproportionate, it was contrary to this fundamental principle as has been upheld by numerous adjudicators as the Council should be aware...
-
I'm not sure if there is a way to add collapsable sections here. For now, I've drafted the two appeals. One for the first PCN and the other that will be used for PCNs 2-13.
Notice to Owner for PCN number ZN12128S1A
I am writing to make a representation about the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) ZN12128S1A, issued to me on 07/05/2024 at 09:33.
I have been a resident of Haringey for over five years, and I have always ensured that my parking permit is kept up to date. The council's reminder emails have been invaluable in helping me renew my permit on time.
As a five-year resident with a consistent permit history, I've held three consecutive permits with Haringey Council since purchasing my car:
- May 2022 (1 Year)
- May 2023 (6 Months)
- October 2023 (6 Months)
As you can see from these dates, I have been very reliable and consistent in renewing my permit as soon as I receive the reminder. However, in this instance, I did not receive the reminder nor am I able to locate it. I also received no other follow-up emails, text messages, or letters.
I understand the council's limited resources, but I believe more could have been done to reach or communicate with me. I've learned that Hackney Council sends multiple reminders for permit renewals to their residents. I would hope Haringey Council could implement similar measures to mitigate the risk of a single communication not being received by residents.
Closing Request
Given my circumstances of being abroad, but also being a permanent resident who has demonstrated a reliable record of holding consistent permits and renewing them promptly, I hope the council will consider this representation with fairness and discretion.
My hope is that we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account my good permit history and the unique circumstances that led to this situation.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration.
Notice to Owner for PCN number ___
I am writing to make a representation against the Notice to Owner (NTO) that has been issued to me for PCN ____. This also appeals 12 other PCNs: ZN12266976, ZN12353988, ZN12354086, ZN12354326, ZN12354417, ZN12354552, ZN12354734, ZN12355191, ZN12411612, ZN12411827, and ZN12413039, for which I am making representations separately.
Before explaining the details, I hope the council will consider being flexible and taking my history as a responsible resident into account, along with the unfortunate circumstances that have led to what I believe is an unreasonable and exceeded penalty.
Summary of Circumstances
As a Haringey resident for over five years now, I've held three parking permits (October 2023 - 6 Months, May 2023 - 6 Months, and May 2022 - 1 Year) and have always renewed them promptly.
From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was out of the country for work. Unfortunately, during that time, my permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall getting the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.
Because of this, my car was without a valid permit for 61 days. This resulted in a continuous stream of parking tickets being issued while I was abroad, without me being aware of this in any way.
The council eventually removed my car on May 31st. On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the car for me, paying the necessary fees for the ticket and the removal.
I understand my car was without a permit, but there isn’t much more I could have done here. I feel that potentially having to pay £1690 for being late on my permit renewal is too much. This is especially since I've demonstrated my reliability as a permanent resident with a good permit history and also these essentially all referring to the same continuous contravention.
The Vehicle Should Have Been Removed Sooner
My car remained in the same place throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024 (Appendix 1.1), often just minutes after 24 hours had passed. For instance, PCNs ___ were issued at 08:20 on 22/05, 08:28 on 24/05, and 08:10 on 25/05.
All PCNs except one (ZN12411827) were for contravention code 12(i) at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all appealing to what is essentially the same continuous contravention. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.
Upon returning to the country, I emailed ___, Head of Highways and Parking, about this situation (Appendix 2.1). She responded:
"Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner."
Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I would have hoped the council would have carefully considered whether this was the most appropriate approach, especially when other enforcement methods were available.
I would have expected the council to:
- Use its power to remove the vehicle more quickly, or
- In case of no available space at the impound, communicate with the CEOs to exercise discretion in not issuing more tickets for the same contravention, or
- Explore other methods of getting in touch with me or removing the vehicle given these unique circumstances.
The excessive number of tickets issued before the car's removal seems unfair, particularly given Ms ___ acknowledgment that it should have been removed sooner.
I'm willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. My hope is that we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.
-
@John U.K. - going to make the changes. I've submitted an out of time for the 14th PCN so waiting to hear back from that. If that gets approved, I can officially make a representation against it. I can refer in the this representation as a loose mention but won't focus on it.
@H C Andersen - my only concern with splitting the first one out is that I can see the council rejecting this one almost instantly. Part of grouping the the first 13 together was to try and get them to make an 'overall' decision. Then again, I'm not sure if it works like this? I'll prepare drafts for 1 and 2-13. 14 will have to wait until they get back to me about whether my out-of-time request has been approved.
-
OP, IMO you have 3 distinct PCN types, it's not one size fits all.
The first = did not receive reminder, unblemished record, pl exercise discretion;
2-13 = continuous contravention, where is the council's authority to issue multiple PCNs when other enforcement methods were available i.e. removing and should have been considered. Why weren't they? Contravention did not occur and Penalty exceeded etc;
14= penalty exceeded because a PCN should not have been issued, other methods should have been considered and implemented earlier; Procedural Impropriety as in you did not provide 'reps' information as required which also = reason for lateness.
-
I'll wait for any other comments but I think the bulk of this looks good now (after your suggested edits).
Not so fast. I haven't had time to go through it all, but will try tonight or tomorrow.
The car did not move = continuous contravention, which you haven't mentioned.
The para on the Release from the pound is too long: the bulk needs to be part of the reps aginst the 14th PCN, where you will be making reps against the PCN and against the removal. If the PCN fails (e.g. for continuous contravention), then so does the removal.
You need to start thinking about these reps. and posting a draft.
-
@John U.K. just FYI, I had a look and when you make a representation line, the PCN is already known, as you start off by entering it and then making the rep. In that sense, it might not be necessary to include it in the letter (as they'll already know). And then when making reps against the ones that haven't been delivered by post, I can explicitly mention this.
-
@John U.K. - sounds good and good shout on the PDF too.
I'll wait for any other comments but I think the bulk of this looks good now (after your suggested edits).
-
Now we know you are able to make reps online (remember to use a pdf attachment to preserve formatting) and that you have not received some of the PCNs/NtOs I am going to suggest you modify your opening as below.
You now know that the Council have issued the missing items, even if they have not reached you, so you can make reps against the relevant NtO. If the NtO and/or the PCN is missing, say in your reps.
You can use the same reps for each NtO, modifying the opening paragraphs as appropriate.
Wait for others to comment on my suggested opening and on the remainder of your latest draft.
--------------------------------------
Notice to Owner for PCN number (insert number)
I am making representation against the above NtO issued on (Date). For the reasons outlined below, I wish this representation to be considered together with those against the NtOs for the following PCNs (insert list).
(Insert as appropriate: I should point out that this PCN/this NtO was/were not received by me -see below.)
--------------------------
You don't begin 'Dear Haringey Council'! :)
You do need to make reps for each NtO.
It might be easier to put my suggested opening (which is unique to each NtO and changing 'below' to 'attached') in the representation box or whatever Haringey provide and finish with see attached pdf for the formal representations.
-
@H C Andersen
Took a while but I've toned it down a lot more:
Dear Haringey Council,
I'm writing to make a representation about the Notice to Owner (NTO) that was issued to me. This representation covers 13 of the 14 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) related to this case, which are listed in Appendix 1.1. The PCNs in question are: ZN12128S1A, ZN12212900, ZN12266976, ZN12353988, ZN12354086, ZN12354326, ZN12354417, ZN12354552, ZN12354734, ZN12355191, ZN12411612, ZN12411827 and ZN12413039.
As for the 14th PCN (ZN12536367), I'd also like to make a representation, but I wasn't told how to do so.
I've been a resident of Haringey for over 5 years now, and I've always made sure to keep my parking permit up to date. The council's reminder emails have really helped me renew my permit on time in the past.
However, due to an unfortunate situation, I believe the penalties in this case have been excessive. Before explaining the details, I hope the council will consider being flexible and taking my history as a responsible resident into account.
Summary of Circumstances
As a Haringey resident for over five years now, I've held a parking permit since October 2023. From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was away for work. Unfortunately during that time, my permit expired on April 25th and I don't recall getting the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.
Because of this, my car was without a valid permit for 61 days. This resulted in a continuous stream of 14 parking tickets being issued while I was away, without me being aware of this in any way.
The council eventually removed my car on May 31st. On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the car for me, paying £265 (£65 for a ticket and £200 for the removal).
So far I have received 4 NTOs, but according to the Haringey parking website, 9 more NTOs have been issued but have not yet arrived in the post. This seems unusual as NTOs are typically posted on the day they're issued?
I understand my car was without a permit, but there isn’t much more I could have done here. I feel that potentially having to pay £1690 for being late on my permit renewal is too much, especially since I've demonstrated my reliability as a permanent resident with a good permit history.
I'm asking the council to please consider:
- Why it took so long to remove the car
- Why I didn't get the usual reminders about renewing my permit
- Some issues with how the car was impounded and released
Why it took so long to remove the car
My car remained in the same place throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024 (Appendix 1.1), often just minutes after 24 hours had passed. For instance, PCNs were issued at 08:20 on 22/05, 08:28 on 24/05, and 08:10 on 25/05.
All PCNs except one (dated 29/05) were for contravention code 12(i) at the same location on Cornwall Road. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets (which essentially refer to the same issue) are unfair.
Upon returning to the country, I emailed __, Head of Highways and Parking, about this situation (Appendix 2.1). She responded:
"Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner."
Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I hope the council will reconsider whether issuing so many tickets for the same ongoing issue was the most appropriate approach. I would have expected the council to:
- Use its power to remove the vehicle more quickly, or
- In case of no available space at the impound, communicate with the CEOs to exercise discretion in not issuing more tickets for the same contravention, given these unique circumstances.
The excessive number of tickets issued before the car's removal seems unfair, particularly given __ acknowledgment that it should have been removed sooner. I'm willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. My hope is that we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.
Why I didn't get the usual reminders about renewing my permit
As a five-year resident with a consistent permit history, I've held three consecutive permits with Haringey Council since purchasing my car:
- May 2022 (1 Year)
- May 2023 (6 Months)
- October 2023 (6 Months)
As you can see from these dates, I've been very reliable and consistent in renewing my permit as soon as I receive the reminder.
However, in this instance, I did not receive the reminder nor am I able to locate it. I also received no other follow-up emails, text messages, or letters.
I understand the council's limited resources, but I believe more could have been done to reach or communicate with me. I've learned that Hackney Council sends multiple reminders for permit renewals to their residents. I would hope Haringey Council could implement similar measures to mitigate the risk of a single communication not being received.
Some issues with how the car was impounded and released
I asked my sister, who is also a resident of Haringey Council, to periodically check on my car every month to ensure the battery does not zero. However, having three kids meant that she was unable to check on the car more frequently. After dropping off her kids to a weekend club on a Saturday, she was able to go and visit my car.
On arrival, she called me instantly, explaining that my car was not there. She was told by a nearby neighbour that it had been taken away. She went out of her way to find immediate childcare, as she spent the rest of the day on the phone with me trying to gather all the documents in order to get the car back from the impound. This was very stressful for her and myself.
Eventually my sister and a family friend went to the impound to recover the vehicle on my behalf, paying the removal PCN (£65) and release fee (£200). The impound staff provided only two documents: the PCN receipt (Appendix 3.1) and a vehicle removal receipt (Appendix 3.2). They gave no information about my rights to appeal or make representations against this 14th (ZN12536367) PCN, nor any additional documentation.
This has left me in a difficult situation as I was unaware of my rights, or how I could go about appealing this. Additionally, it's been difficult to get in touch with the council about this - I sent them an email but haven't heard anything back yet.
Closing request
Given my circumstances of being abroad, but also being a permanent resident who has demonstrated a reliable record of holding consistent permits and renewing them promptly, I hope the council will consider this representation with fairness and capacity for discretion.
-
OP, IMO far too in-your-face for the first PCN.
IMO, without sight of the traffic order the only possible grounds here are:
'Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case',
When making reps to the council you are asking them to accept their share of responsibility, notwithstanding the wording of the Ts and Cs, and in respect of this PCN to exercise discretion. I'd save the legal arguments regarding custom and practice until adjudication - if it gets this far.
Try a little tenderness...butter them up with how useful you have found their reminders etc. etc.
-
@Enceladus thank you for that! I thought there might be a separate link, but really it was just on the same website which is ideal. In that case, I won't send the representation by post and will do so online.
Here is what I have so far:
I am making a representation against the Notice to Owner (NTO) issued to me. This will apply to 13 of the 14 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs - Appendix 1.1) related to this case. For the 14th PCN (ZN12536367), I wish to make a representation, but was not informed how to do so.
To date, I've received 4 NTOs by post, with 9 pending. On the Haringey parking website, under Key Events (screenshots in Appendix 4.1), it shows that NTOs have been issued for 9 PCNs but don't appear to have been posted. NTOs should be posted on the day of issue. Could you please confirm the address used for these missing NTOs? The 9 PCNs in question are: ZN12354086, ZN12354326, ZN12354417, ZN12354552, ZN12354734, ZN12355191, ZN12411612, ZN12411827, ZN12413039, ZN12536367.
I will provide context before presenting my three-part representation, which I'll explain in detail in separate sections.
Summary
I've held a resident's permit since October 2023. From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was abroad for work. My permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall receiving a renewal notification. Consequently, my car remained parked and stationary in the same place without a valid permit for 61 days.
During this period, 14 PCNs were issued before the council decided to remove my car on May 31st. On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying £265 (£65 PCN fee, £200 removal charge).
I've received 4 NTOs and expect 9 more. The council's potential £1690 demand for late permit renewal is excessive, especially considering my five-year residency and consistent permit history.
My appeal consists of three parts:
- The council's failure to remove the vehicle earlier.
- Absence of permit renewal reminders or attempts to contact me.
- Procedural failures during vehicle impound and release.
Failure to remove the vehicle earlier
My car remained stationary throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024 (Appendix 1.1), often just minutes after 24 hours had passed. For instance, PCNs were issued at 08:20 on 22/05, 08:28 on 24/05, and 08:10 on 25/05.
All PCNs except one (dated 29/05) were for contravention code 12(i) at the same location on Cornwall Road. This pattern shows the contraventions were essentially identical, making the number of PCNs excessive and punitive rather than corrective.
Ann Cunningham, Head of Highways and Parking, stated in response to my complaint made to Haringey Council (Appendix 2.1): 'Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner.’
A single, continuous contravention occurred as the vehicle remained stationary. No law entitles authorities to issue PCNs every 24 hours for the same offence. For continuous contraventions, authorities should use other powers, like vehicle removal. The Council's failure to remove the vehicle promptly should not result in my liability for multiple penalties. This approach is disproportionate and unfair.
The admission by Ann Cunningham, along with the 14 PCNs issued before removal, highlights the council's failure to follow their procedures, resulting in an unjustified number of PCNs for a single, ongoing contravention.
Absence of permit renewal reminders or attempts to contact me
As a five-year resident with a consistent permit history, I've held three consecutive permits with Haringey Council:
- May 2022 (1 Year)
- May 2023 (6 Months)
- October 2023 (6 Months)
My prompt renewals upon receiving past communications demonstrate my reliability.
Haringey Council states: "You'll get an email 5 weeks before your permit ends asking you to renew your permit." However:
- I did not receive this reminder email and cannot locate it in my records.
- No follow-up emails, text messages, or letters were sent.
- No other attempts to contact me were made.
This lack of communication contrasts with other councils' practices, such as Hackney, which sends multiple reminders. Haringey's single email attempt is insufficient to inform residents of expiring permits, especially given my history of prompt renewals upon notification.
Procedural failures during vehicle impound and release
My sister and a family friend recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying the removal PCN and release fee. The impound staff provided only the PCN receipt (Appendix 3.1) and a vehicle removal receipt (Appendix 3.2), with no information about my rights to appeal or make representations. Additionally, no documentation about how to make representations was provided. I remained unaware of these rights until I sought legal advice.
This was a clear breach of the 'Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions'.
-
https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/pcns-parking-traffic/challenge-make-representations-a-parking-pcn
Scroll down the page a bit and find the green "Make an online challenge or representation >" button. That gets you to the Parking ticket viewer. Put in the details of one of your PCNS and press Search. Now you can see the PCN details. To the left of the Key Events tab near the top is the Make a Representation tab. Probably won't work for PCN 14 but give it a try as well.
And as I mentioned earlier, you've got plenty of time so post up your latest drafts for scrutiny before submitting representations.
-
@Enceladus where is the option to do this online? I could not see it.
-
You have some time available to get this right, bearing in mind that sooner rather than later is better. Please post up here the latest drafts of what you intend to say before you post anything to the Council. Also you should be able to submit the representations on-line, except maybe for PCN 14.
Get screen prints of the Key Events for each of the first 13 PCNs.
I'd be inclined to politely ask the Council in your reps why the Key Events for the 9 PCNs show that Notice To Owners have been issued but don't appear to have been posted? Mention that the NTOs should have been posted on the day of issue. Ask them to confirm the address used on the missing NTOs? And make sure to list the 9 NTOs.
It might annoy them, but clearly something is wrong. Whilst correctly addressed letters might go missing, really they should all have arrived before now, Suggests that that they haven't actually been printed and posted.
-
@H C Andersen
That makes sense, and especially given that some were sent and others weren't. I'll be sure to highlight it in the appeal as failure on their part (given the website clearly shows that the others have progressed to NTOs).
I agree! My plan is to send them tomorrow first class and that should be well within the 28 day return period, given the first one progressed on the 24th July.
-
@Enceladus just want to thank you again for your patient and clarity, super helpful!
Oh I understand now. So I've checked and my sister was only given seven PCNs at the impound. I have them and they correspond to the following PCNS:
- ZN12354326 - 22/05/2024 08:20
- ZN12354417 - 23/05/2024 08:28
- ZN12354552 - 24/05/2024 08:29
- ZN12354734 - 25/05/2024 08:10
- ZN12411612 - 28/05/2024 08:06
- ZN12411827 - 29/05/2024 08:12
- ZN12413039 - 30/05/2024 10:04
So there are 6 missing (going from 07/05-20/05). My guess is either there has been some tampering by the CEOs or they blew away during a rainy day. I'm not sure..
Okay, that's a real pain if those NTOs have progressed but I haven't got the letters. Initially I was planning to appeal the 4 that I had that enclose the forms in a single envelope along with my detailed appeal. I'm assuming that the remaining 9 will never come, in which case I will have to update my appeal to mention that although Haringey's website show they have progressed, I haven't received them.
I've located my V5C and attached the pictures below. The front page and section 3 (covered with the black boxes) show my correct and current address. I received this document ~May 2023, so it was correct through May 2024 and when the PCNs were issued. The RK is me. This document quite honestly is still confusing for me.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ali5TgK.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/esB1ZuW.jpeg)
-
Re my previous post, that horse has bolted as the council's records show all NTOs now issued, the machine has ground away because it doesn't know anything better.
IMO, looking for your V5C is not your priority, this is to make reps and tell the council what has happened. What counts is the 28-day periods which attach to the NTOs you have received and the pound PCN. You are not obliged to go hunting your V5C because you've no reason to think there's a problem. Your role is passive, you only 'know' something might be amiss because you've been told. You have no reason to think that there's anything untoward with your V5C because you have received 4 NTOs correctly addressed(you will confirm), so what's the problem?
I just want you to send reps to the council, not worry about why something which you've been told has been sent to you hasn't arrived, this can be dealt with later and in its turn.
In short: shed light on the council's darkness ASP.
-
Sorry not sure I understood the question. These all refer to the PCNs that were put onto the car.
Where are you seeing this online? I haven't received any other NTOs.
Yes, I'm the registered keeper on the V5C. I've had to send this over previously for permit applications and my post isn't being redirected. It wouldn't make sense for them to send me 4 NTOs and none others if there was some issue on their system regarding this?
EDIT: I think I might have messed up here :(. I don't think I sent off the V5C. It's quite confusing as I assumed this V5C was enough and I did not need to do anything else. It's my first car and DVLA instructions aren't clear. Also, on registration of my other permits, I sent the V5C as evidence. Why would they approve this, if it was invalid?
I asked whether or not you have possession of all of the 14 PCNs. I mean the notices that were put onto the windscreen in the yellow plastic envelopes? I know you know all of the PCN numbers but have you got the PCNs themselves? So far you've only shown us PCN #14, the one paid at the pound.
If you check your PCNs online on Haringey's website you can select the Key Events tab and can see there if and when a NTO was issued. This shows that the first 4 PCNs progressed to the NTO stage on the 24th July. And that 8 out of the remaining 9 progressed to NTO on the 26th July. And 1 PCN progressed to NTO on the 29th July.
The PCN paid at the pound, PCN #14 won't ever progress to NTO as it was paid. That has to be handled differently.
So you have 4 NTOs and 9 have gone missing. That's not really credible. In most cases this means that the RK details held by the DVLA are not correct. Either because of a change of address or sometimes typos in the details. The Council will request the RK details from the DVLA for the date of the contravention and will use that as the address to serve all of the statutory notices. Of course that might explain why 9 NTOs go missing but not why you got the first 4.
So back to basics. Find the V5c for the car. Is the RK's name and address correct and current? And was it correct through May, when the PCNs were issued? And are you the RK that's named or is it somebody else, a relative perhaps?
-
Sorry not sure I understood the question. These all refer to the PCNs that were put onto the car.
Where are you seeing this online? I haven't received any other NTOs.
Yes, I'm the registered keeper on the V5C. I've had to send this over previously for permit applications and my post isn't being redirected. It wouldn't make sense for them to send me 4 NTOs and none others if there was some issue on their system regarding this?
EDIT: I think I might have messed up here :(. I don't think I sent off the V5C. It's quite confusing as I assumed this V5C was enough and I did not need to do anything else. It's my first car and DVLA instructions aren't clear. Also, on registration of my other permits, I sent the V5C as evidence. Why would they approve this, if it was invalid?
-
@Enceladus
These are the 14 I have:
- ZN1212851A - 07/05/2024 09:33
- ZN12212900 - 16/05/2024 09:16
- ZN12266976 - 15/05/2024 16:25
- ZN1235398A - 17/05/2024 08:24
- ZN12354086 - 18/05/2024 08:38
- ZN12354326 - 22/05/2024 08:20
- ZN12354417 - 23/05/2024 08:28
- ZN12354552 - 24/05/2024 08:29
- ZN12354734 - 25/05/2024 08:10
- ZN12355191 - 20/05/2024 09:11
- ZN12411612 - 28/05/2024 08:06
- ZN12411827 - 29/05/2024 08:12
- ZN12413039 - 30/05/2024 10:04
- ZN12536367 - 31/05/2024 08:08 (impound PCN)
Do you mean that have all 14 on-street PCN tickets?
What has happened to the 9 NTOs that show online as being issued 26th-29th July? They should all have been posted on the day of issue. You should have received them by now.
Are you the Registered Keeper of the car? Is the name and address on the V5c registration document 100% correct? Is your post being redirected / forwarded from somewhere else?
-
@Enceladus
These are the 14 I have:
- ZN1212851A - 07/05/2024 09:33
- ZN12212900 - 16/05/2024 09:16
- ZN12266976 - 15/05/2024 16:25
- ZN1235398A - 17/05/2024 08:24
- ZN12354086 - 18/05/2024 08:38
- ZN12354326 - 22/05/2024 08:20
- ZN12354417 - 23/05/2024 08:28
- ZN12354552 - 24/05/2024 08:29
- ZN12354734 - 25/05/2024 08:10
- ZN12355191 - 20/05/2024 09:11
- ZN12411612 - 28/05/2024 08:06
- ZN12411827 - 29/05/2024 08:12
- ZN12413039 - 30/05/2024 10:04
- ZN12536367 - 31/05/2024 08:08 (impound PCN)
-
@Enceladus - thanks for clarifying!
I've only received 4 NTOs so far.
For the 14th PCN, I've just sent off (via post) an out of time (https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge-notice/out-of-time) challenge as @cp8759 suggested.
Yes, all four are dated 24/07/2024. These correspond to PCNS:
- ZN1212851A - 07/05/2024 09:33
- ZN12266976 - 15/05/2024 16:25
- ZN12212900 - 16/05/2024 09:16
- ZN1235398A - 17/05/2024 08:24
None of the remaining 9 have arrived :S
@H C Andersen that makes sense! It's why I thought it's better to make this appeal reference all 13 NTOs, even if they haven't arrived. As you said I won't be surprised if some go missing.
-
........................
I can make the list, the only issue is that only 4 have been sent so far. I haven't received any others. I can list those and say I am also appealing the others that haven't been sent yet.
........................
Please confirm the first 4 Notice to Owners are dated 24th July 2024?
Are these all of the NTOs that you have actually received?
The remaining 9 NTOs are all dated the 26th July except for ZN12411827 which is dated the 29th July. Are you saying that none of these have arrived?
And do you have all 14 of the on-street PCNs? If you don't have them all then please post up a list of the ones that you do have.
-
When you finally engage with the authority - remember, they have NO idea what's happened, their CEOs have churned out PCN after PCN and eventually the car was removed, but don't expect the authority to have kept a watching brief over this because unless you were removed as a 'persistent evader' which we know you weren't, then frankly they're in the dark UNTIL you enlighten them - then on reading your representations IMO you won't get every NTO, they'd be mind dead to do so. (not impossible, but...)
IMO, this is not about them following by rote the process for a single PCN 14 times, it's about you telling them what's happened and them attempting to rationalise the matter.
-
The Notice to Owner is not a Notice of Rejection.
You submit informal representations against an on-site PCN. The person in possession of the PCN can do this.
You submit formal representations against a subsequent Notice to Owner. Or a PCN served by post where there is no informal stage. The NTO or PCN will be addressed to the person or entity held by the DVLA as Registered Keeper on the date of the alleged contravention. The RK submits the representations. If these formal reps or rejected then you can submit an appeal to the independent Adjudicator at the London Tribunals.
And yes the Notice of Rejection should include a code to allow you to appeal online.
You're at the formal representations stage with your PCNs that have progressed to the NTO stage. Which is all of them except PCN 14? Please confirm that you have received NTOs for the first 13 PCNs?
PCN 14 was paid at the pound and you are now out of time to submit informal representations against it. There is no subsequent NTO with a PCN and removal. So that's the only case where an NTO doesn't escalate from an on-site PCN. That said you would still get a Notice of Rejection with the appeal to the Adjudicator option. You should still have a go at submitting representations against PCN 14 and explain why you are late.
You cannot appeal to the Adjudicator until you have an NoR, one for each PCN including PCN 14.
-
I'm very confused.
Is the the Notice to Owner the same as a Notice of Rejection?
On Haringey's website (https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/pcns-parking-traffic/appeal-a-representations-decision), it says that I can appeal a decision online or by post.
But then it directs me to the London Tribunals website here (https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/).
On there it says I need the details contained on the Notice of Rejection to make an appeal?
-
@John U.K, thanks!
I can make the list, the only issue is that only 4 have been sent so far. I haven't received any others. I can list those and say I am also appealing the others that haven't been sent yet.
Appreciate it nonetheless and I'll just make the changes.
I can't see an option to make a representation against the Notice to Owner online. It's why I was going to send it at a letter. I'd prefer online but again I can't see it on Haringey's website.
-
I am appealing making representations against the above Notices to Owner (NTO) issued to me. This appeal representation applies will apply to 13 of the 14 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs - Appendix 1.1) related to this case. For the 14th PCN (ZN12536367), I wish to appeal make a representation but was not made aware of how to make a representation against it. As of now, I've received 4 NTOs, with a further 9 pending. I will provide context before presenting my three-part representation, which I'll explain in detail in separate sections.
Wait for others to comment but do not miss any deadlines.
My initial observations:
Begin by making a list(dates and numbers) of the NtOs against which you wish these reps to be considered.
Change the opening paragraph as I have outlined above.- I am not very happy with the overall result of my changes :(
If you are submitting reps online, you will have to complete a form for each NtO - attach your reps as a pdf to each one and adjust the opening appropriately.
-
@John U.K.
Yes, you are right sorry. I am sending in my representation against the NTOs. My understanding is if this is rejected, I will get a Notice of Rejection and then I can make an appeal to an independent adjudicator (the tribunal?).
I've tried to keep the final draft as short as possible and state the facts as suggested by @Enceladus
I am appealing the Notice to Owner (NTO) issued to me. This appeal applies to 13 of the 14 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs - Appendix 1.1) related to this case. For the 14th PCN (ZN12536367), I wish to appeal but was not made aware of how to make a representation against it. As of now, I've received 4 NTOs, with 9 pending. I will provide context before presenting my three-part representation, which I'll explain in detail in separate sections.
Executive Summary
I've held a resident's permit since October 2023. From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was abroad for work. My permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall receiving a renewal notification. Consequently, my car remained parked and stationary in the same place without a valid permit for 61 days.
During this period, 14 PCNs were issued before the council decided to remove my car on May 31st. On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying £265 (£65 PCN fee, £200 removal charge).
I've received 4 NTOs and expect 9 more. The council's potential £1690 demand for late permit renewal is excessive, especially considering my five-year residency and consistent permit history.
My appeal consists of three parts:
- The council's failure to remove the vehicle earlier.
- Absence of permit renewal reminders or attempts to contact me.
- Procedural failures during vehicle impound and release.
The council's failure to remove the vehicle earlier
My car remained stationary throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024 (Appendix 1.1), often just minutes after 24 hours had passed. For instance, PCNs were issued at 08:20 on 22/05, 08:28 on 24/05, and 08:10 on 25/05.
All PCNs except one (dated 29/05) were for contravention code 12(i) at the same location on Cornwall Road. This pattern shows the contraventions were essentially identical, making the number of PCNs excessive and punitive rather than corrective.
___, Head of Highways and Parking, stated in response to my complaint made to Haringey Council (Appendix 2.1): 'Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner.’
A single, continuous contravention occurred as the vehicle remained stationary. No law entitles authorities to issue PCNs every 24 hours for the same offence. For continuous contraventions, authorities should use other powers, like vehicle removal. The Council's failure to remove the vehicle promptly should not result in my liability for multiple penalties. This approach is disproportionate and unfair.
The admission by ___, along with the 14 PCNs issued before removal, highlights the council's failure to follow their procedures, resulting in an unjustified number of PCNs for a single, ongoing contravention.
Absence of permit renewal reminders or attempts to contact me
As a five-year resident with a consistent permit history, I've held three consecutive permits with Haringey Council:
May 2022 (1 Year)
May 2023 (6 Months)
October 2023 (6 Months)
My prompt renewals upon receiving past communications demonstrate my reliability.
Haringey Council states: "You'll get an email 5 weeks before your permit ends asking you to renew your permit." However:
- I did not receive this reminder email and cannot locate it in my records.
- No follow-up emails, text messages, or letters were sent.
- No other attempts to contact me were made.
This lack of communication contrasts with other councils' practices, such as Hackney, which sends multiple reminders. Haringey's single email attempt is insufficient to inform residents of expiring permits, especially given my history of prompt renewals upon notification.
Procedural failures during vehicle impound and release
My sister and a family friend recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying the removal PCN and release fee. The impound staff provided only the PCN receipt (Appendix 3.1) and a vehicle removal receipt (Appendix 3.2), with no information about my rights to appeal or make representations. Additionally, no documentation about how to make representations was provided. I remained unaware of these rights until I sought legal advice.
This was a clear breach of the 'Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions'.
-
I'm just going to send the appeal in the envelope along with the 4 NTO's
I'm confused - one doesn't send back the NtOs, you send in your reps against them (the appeal, to the tribunal, is the next step)
Have we seen your final draft?
-
Wouldn't I need to appeal each NTO separately, even if my appeal letter is the same across them?
EDIT: For now I'm just going to send the appeal in the envelope along with the 4 NTO's I've received so far.
-
Annoyingly I will have to send 13 of these for the 13 NTOS, albeit I have only received four so far!
I'm not sure why you'd need to send 13 seperate letters?!?
-
@Enceladus and @cp8759, thank you!
I wasn't aware of the ability to make an out-of-time so I'll do that and include the bits you mentioned.
Then I'll include this also in the pound section moreso to reference the malpractice at the site and how I intend to do the above, rather than appealing it in this reprsentation.
And yes, that's a good point about first class too @Enceladus so I will do that. Annoyingly I will have to send 13 of these for the 13 NTOS, albeit I have only received four so far!
-
@inst1nct103 I think you need to add an out-of-time representation against the removal PCN, and you need to add some wording explaining that because no representations paperwork was provided at the pound you were not aware of your right to make representations, nor were you aware of the 28 day time limit, and you were only alerted to the fact that you could make representations against that PCN when you sought legal advice.
-
If you have to post anything then do so first class at the Post Officer counter before last post and obtain a FOC proof of posting. The letter will be deemed served on the second working day after posting.
There is a problem with appealing the PCN and tow. Your sister retrieved the car on the 1st of June. You had 28 days beginning with that date to submit a representation (challenge), which if refused would have included the credentials to appeal to the Adjudicator at the London Tribunals. You're now late. Without the Notice of Rejection you won't be able to appeal to the Adjudicator.
This has apparently come about because at the pound they didn't give you (your sister) the instructions concerning your rights to make representations and appeal and how to go to do so. And so you didn't know of the deadlines. So you should explain that in the pound section. Hopefully they will still accept your representations.
-
Thank you!
I'm not surprised at all about the tampering. I think I'm more aligned with you in saving these details for a later stage (if it comes to it). But happy to see what others think?
Yes, the correct number is 14. It's the impound PCN that's been paid as you highlighted but thought it's technically not part of this appeal. I'll include it anyway as it adds no harm.
Unfortunately the issue is that I can't appeal it via the council website, given it's been paid.
I have just noticed they have a contact box so I could use that and highlight that the sufficient information for how I can make a representation for this PCN was not given at the impound, and then ask them how I would go about doing this.
-
Nobody else has commented on the issue of interference with those PCNs previously served. Asides from the 2 examples I posted earlier PCN ZN12212900, the third oldest, shows no evidence photos PCNs on the windscreen and then two of the last photos with 3 (not 100% sure) PCNs under the nearside wiper. So the two extant PCNs have been removed, then the CEO takes the evidence photos and then reinstates the two that were removed and adds the new one.
So why does the CEO do this? It seems that at least some of the CEOs want the car to be clean of visible PCNs before they can issue a new one. Likely they believe they have a continuous contravention. To me it adds credence to the continuous contravention argument.
I'm inclined to not mention it at this stage. Bring it up if and or when the PCN and removal gets to the Adjudicator. But I'm open to other opinions.
Also your representation is not clear on how many PCNs you have. You've mentioned 13 but isn't the correct number 14? PCN 14 being the one paid at the pound. Even though it's paid you still challenge it with the Council and then appeal to the Adjudicator if they reject. Even if you lose the amount won't increase for PCN 14.
-
Thanks,
I'm adding this at the bottom of Section 1:
"A single, continuous contravention occurred as the vehicle remained stationary at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. No law or regulation entitles an authority to issue PCNs every 24 hours or less for the same offense. For continuous contraventions, enforcement authorities have other powers at their disposal, such as vehicle removal. The Council's failure to remove the vehicle promptly should not result in my liability for multiple penalties. This approach is disproportionate, unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.
This admission, coupled with the PCN record showing 13 tickets issued before removal, highlights the council's failure to follow their own procedures and remove the vehicle promptly, leading to an unjustified number of PCNs for what is arguably a single, ongoing contravention."
Do you think I should save the probably PCN interference you picked up on in the photos for later (if it goes to Tribunal)?
@cp8759 any thoughts or similar cases?
-
I suggest that you state the facts. Let the Council rebut them if they don't agree.
One continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remained at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued.
There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal.
The Council failed to remove the vehicle in a timely manner and I cannot be held responsible for this. It is disproportionate , unfair and not in the interests of justice.
-
@H C Andersen thank you, that's very helpful!
I've drafted the following representation.
I'm not sure whether to include the probable interference of the PCNs that @Enceladus highlighted? I've omitted them for now, but any thoughts on the letter would be much appreciated!
Notice to Owner Appeal
I am appealing the Notice to Owner (NTO) issued to me. This appeal applies to all 13 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs - Appendix 1.1) related to this case. As of now, I've received 4 NTOs, with 9 pending. I will provide context before presenting my three-part representation, which I'll explain in detail in separate sections.
Executive Summary
I've held a resident's permit since October 2023. From April 12 to July 12, 2024, I was abroad for work. My permit expired on April 25, and I don't recall receiving a renewal notification. Consequently, my car remained parked and stationary in the same place without a valid permit for 61 days.
During this period, 13 PCNs were issued before the council decided to remove my car on May 31 (PCN ZN12536367 - Appendix 1.2). On June 1, my sister recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying £265 (£65 PCN fee, £200 removal charge).
I've received 4 NTOs and expect 9 more. The council's potential £1690 demand for late permit renewal is excessive, especially considering my five-year residency and consistent permit history.
My appeal consists of three parts:
1. The council's lack of fairness and failure to remove the vehicle earlier.
2. Absence of permit renewal reminders or attempts to contact me.
3. Lack of representation information at the impound and misinformation about required documents.
Section 1 - Lack of Fairness
Councils have a public law duty to act fairly, as outlined in the 'Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions'. The guidance emphasises:
1. Applying different penalties for different contraventions.
2. Ensuring efficient, effective, and impartial processes for handling challenges and appeals.
I believe the council acted unfairly by issuing 14 PCNs (including immobilisation) for these reasons:
1. My car remained stationary throughout the period. The PCN printout (Appendix 1.1) clearly shows that tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024, often just minutes after 24 hours had passed. For instance, PCNs were issued at 08:20 on 22/05, 08:28 on 24/05, and 08:10 on 25/05. All but one PCN (dated 29/05) were for the same contravention code 12(i), at the same location on Cornwall Road. This pattern demonstrates that all contraventions were essentially the same, making the number and frequency of PCNs excessive and punitive rather than corrective.
2. ___, Head of Highways and Parking, stated in response to my complaint (Appendix 2.1): 'Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner.'
This admission, coupled with the PCN record showing 13 tickets issued before removal, highlights the council's failure to follow their own procedures and remove the vehicle promptly, leading to an unjustified number of PCNs for what is arguably a single, ongoing contravention.
Section 2 - Lack of Communication
As a five-year resident with a consistent permit history, I've held three consecutive permits with Haringey Council:
1. May 2022 (1 Year)
2. May 2023 (6 Months)
3. October 2023 (6 Months)
My prompt renewals upon receiving past communications demonstrate my reliability.
Haringey Council states: "You'll get an email 5 weeks before your permit ends asking you to renew your permit." However:
1. I did not receive this reminder email and cannot locate it in my records.
2. No follow-up emails, text messages, or letters were sent.
3. No other attempts to contact me were made.
This lack of communication contrasts with other councils' practices, such as Hackney, which sends multiple reminders. Haringey's single email attempt is insufficient to inform residents of expiring permits, especially given my history of prompt renewals upon notification.
Section 3 - Impound Malpractice
1. Inconsistent Information:
- My sister was initially told by phone that my passport, driving license, bill, and a handwritten authorisation letter were sufficient for vehicle release.
- Upon arrival, a different representative deemed these documents insufficient, requiring an additional signature and specific document placement.
- This inconsistency caused significant inconvenience, forcing my sister to search for printing facilities while managing three children.
2. Violation of Statutory Guidance:
The 'Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions' states:
'On the release of a vehicle from a clamp or the vehicle pound, the authority must immediately inform the vehicle owner or person in charge of the vehicle about their right to make representations and their subsequent right to appeal against representations that are rejected.'
3. Breach of Procedure:
- My sister was not provided with any documentation explaining how to make a representation.
- This oversight has effectively removed my right to appeal the PCN that triggered the immobilisation.
- Despite contacting the council separately about this issue, I currently have no means to appeal this specific PCN.
These procedural failures have significantly impacted my ability to address the triggering PCN and caused undue stress and inconvenience.
-
OP, this has the capacity to get very complex and IMO you need to find a standard intro for all the PCNs. Fairly easy to draft IMO.
Perhaps to start..
I hold a resident's permit and have done so continuously since ***.
On ** I left the UK for work purposes with and returned on ***.
On ** my permit expired. I do not recall having received any notification from you for this and the combination of this and me being away led to a period of *** days during which my car was continuously stationary on the road without a current resident's permit.
During this period various CEOs issued no less than *** PCNs, this practice only being halted by virtue of the council removing my car on *** in respect of PCN **** which was issued at that time. On ** my sister recovered the car on my behalf on payment of *** comprising ***/***/*** for the removal, storage and penalty charges respectively. I have since received ** NTOs and if the council pursues each PCN then in time it would be demanding an additional £1700 from me for not renewing my permit in a timely manner.
OP, I just want to try and capture the absurdity of their position as concisely as possible as well as getting all your details in one place.
None of the above goes into potential defences, it just attempts to set the scene.
-
One other thing on my mind is whether to include the mishaps at the impound in the representation against to the Notice to Owner.
Just as a recap, 13 PCNs and 1 separate one that triggered the removal.
Should I include the lack of documentation provided at the impound in the representations for those 13 PCNs? Or should I keep that separate and appeal that in the representation against the 14th PCN (which I still need to figure out how to do given it's been paid)?
-
Yes and also with a family friend who paid for the release. Buy my sister was the one with all the documents. I also, as part of the release, had to send a handwritten document authorising the release. Initially she wasn't told that my license needed to be on top of the document which meant she had to run around to find a nearby place to print the new copy I sent over once I was told. I was going to bring this up as a point in how one of the representatives at the impound on the phone misinformed her as to exactly what documents needed to be provided. As on arrival, she was told differently.
-
@cp8759 no. Quite honestly I didn't know this PCN existed until I created this thread and learnt that a separate PCN is used to trigger the impound.
So was it your sister who picked up the car from the pound?
-
@cp8759 no. Quite honestly I didn't know this PCN existed until I created this thread and learnt that a separate PCN is used to trigger the impound. The document provided to my sister at the impound also did not list this PCN. A receipt was provided for the payment of this specific PCN to release the car. No other document was provided on how I can appeal this PCN. And on that note, if I am to appeal it, I'm not actually sure how I would now go about doing it? I've received four out of an expected 13 NTOs so some are still yet to come in the post.
-
Thanks for your response.
I've had a look back through the documents and it was an additional PCN that was issued on 31/05. That was the pound PCN.
This was given along with the release document (single-sided) which I've attached below.
The PCN number is ZN12536367 and the amount paid to release the vehicle was £200. They required this PCN to be paid too which was £65, so in total £265 was paid.
@inst1nct103 so were representations ever made against PCN ZN12536367?
-
@Enceladus - my sister didn't visit the car during the time that any of the PCNs were issued. Otherwise she would have called me. On the day she most recently visited, it the day after in which it was taken to the impound. I'll PM cp8759 to see if he can shed any light on similar cases.
@stamfordman so you think I should hint at (and not directly argue that) this one 'continuous contravention'? Otherwise I can just say that this is 'exhorbitant' and put this under the section I plan to write arguing the unfair treatment I am receiving here as a resident. It's also good to know that Hackney council seems to be sending a few reminders rather than just one! Also what do you think about what @Enceladus said about not mentioning probable interference with the PCNs at this stage?
-
Strictly speaking these are not continuous contraventions but the tribunal can interpret them as such as being 'exorbitant' given the alternative remedy of removal available.
(https://i.ibb.co/PT3zQBj/Screenshot-2024-07-29-at-16-27-38.png)
The removal PCN (and tow charge) should be challenged separately given the seeming lack of documentation provided.
The rest are all going to NTO anyway and should be grouped and reps made on duty to act fairly in the case of what amounts to one contravention for a usually diligent resident, plus lack of permit reminder. There is nothing to lose and they may cancel some or probably offer you the discount to buy you off going to the tribunal.
In Hackney I got five permit renewal reminder emails last year (one every 2 weeks and first well in advance of expiry) before I renewed which shows that councils can act better.
-
Please wait and see if cp8759 has more relevant cases, especially the key case. PM him if he doesn't appear.
I'm not sure I'd want to mention the probable interference with the PCNs on the cars at this stage. I'm in two minds about whether or not to save it for the Adjudicator. See what others have to say.
Did your sister visit the car and remove any PCNs from it? Can he provide a list of the days she visited?
-
Thank you @Enceladus! This is very helpful and that particular case you have referenced sounds almost identical to mine.
There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less
than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal.
This specific part is very handy and I think I can build the case on that.
I also appreciate you going over those PCN photos and I did catch some of what you observed, specifically that no signs of any PCNs were there on some of the photos and would indicate some interference. I'll have a look at the rest.
I think I have enough here now (including my points on the last post) to write a letter against the Notice to Owner. I'll share here once drafted and it would be much appreciated to get your thoughts!
-
Further to the continuous contravention above.
Consider the 5th PCN ZN12354086. None of the first 9 evidence photos show any sign of PCNs on the windscreen. However photos 10 & 11 do show PCNs under the offside wiper blade, Photo 12 is of the rear of the car. Photo 10 shows at least 2 PCNs but is not clear. Photo 11 shows at least 3 PCNs.
The CEO only served 1 PCN. It very much looks like the CEO removed the PCNs from the car because he/she know this was a continuing contravention and wanted to show that there were no PCNs served so he/she could legitimately serve a new PCN. The CEO then re-instated the existing PCNs and added the new one.
Look at the 7th PCN ZN12354417. It's the same scenario. There's no sign of any PCNs in photos 1 to 8 and photo 13 (which is of the rear), thus giving the impression that none were on the car when the CEO arrived. So fair game for another PCN. The PCNs appear in photos 10, 11 and 12. Photo 12 is the clearest and suggest that this time there were at least 2 PCNs put onto the windscreen under the nearside wiper.
I don't have time to go through them all but it seems that the CEOs have been interfering with the PCNS that are already served.
-
It's been the situation for a long time that the Council can't just issue new PCNs for the same contravention where one has already been served and the car has not moved.
Below is an example. Hopefully our administrator cp8759 will arrive shortly and will be able to pull out more examples from his chest of cases. I had also thought there was a key case, but I can't find it.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations
1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Details
Case
reference
2110189461
Appellant James George Gibson
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM P844KKU
PCN Details
PCN HY64567480
Contravention
date
06 Jan 2011
Contravention
time
09:12:00
Contravention
location
Lausanne Road
Penalty
amount
GBP 80.00
Contravention In resident shared use place with invalid perm
Referral date
Decision Date 18 May 2011
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal
decision
Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents'
parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011 at 09.00.
The Appellant's case is that the permit had not been renewed because they had
not received a renewal notice from the authority. The Appellant and his wife were
on holiday from 31 December 2010 until 23 January 2011 during which period the
Penalty Charge Notices were incurred.
I have considered the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked
in a residents parking place displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road
on 4 January 2011. It is the Appellant's responsibility to renew their permit and they
are not entitled to rely on the courtesy renewal letter, which may not have been
received.
However, I find that the Appellant's vehicle committed one contravention of parking
in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit when in
Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011.
I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the
same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued.
Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to
6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the
residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty
charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less
than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a
continuous contravention, such as removal.
For the reasons given this appeal is allowed.
I certify this to be a true copy of an entry in the register
-
As you assumed, the car was in the same place. I was abroad for a few months and told her to start the car every few weeks just to keep the battery from zeroing.
From my understanding (correct me if I am wrong), each contravention is its own offence. Unless you've read somewhere otherwise?
Yes, according to that response I received, it's clear the council should have removed the car much earlier (at 3 or 5) so I think there is a case here?
-
Did your sister ever move and repark the car? I assume not.
If the car wasn't moved then surely this is one continuous contravention? The first PCN is valid and the remaining should be cancelled. Or does that not apply here for some reason? The Council had the power to, and should have removed the car much earlier if it continued to be in contravention, not just issue more PCNs.
-
I've received an update as I raised a complaint to Haringey directly about this.
Thank you for giving us an opportunity to investigate your complaint. I am sorry that you are unhappy with the service you received from us.
I am informed that normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal but when it is removed would depend on the level of demand on the removal trucks. I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner. Feedback has been given to our Parking Enforcement Team so they can speak with the staff responsible.
When a vehicle is being claimed at our pound customers are encouraged to send documents via email. The member of staff that dealt with [NAME REMOVED] has confirmed that whilst a paper copy of the V5 was provided, no direction was given to provide hard copies. They did say that they required a signed letter of authorisation from the registered keeper before they could release the vehicle that and that they would also need ID. This was then emailed to the pound before the vehicle was released to [NAME REMOVED].
Please be advised that matters relating to PCNs are handled under a statutory process that is quite prescriptive in terms of how and when a motorist can appeal. You should start to receive the Notice to Owners this week, and it is at that point you may submit formal representations. If your representations are rejected you will be sent a Notice of Rejection of Representations, along with an appeal form. You will then have the opportunity to submit an appeal to London Tribunals, where an independent adjudicator will review you case and make a decision.
I appreciate this may not be the response you were hoping for.
If you are unhappy with my response, you can ask our Feedback & Resolutions team to review your complaint at the second stage of our internal complaint’s process. Please let the team know what your desired outcomes are, this normally must be done within six months of the response. Their contact details are...
With that said, and based off the replies in this thread, I am planning to submit the formal representations with the premises being:
1. Being treated unfairly as a resident in the harsh issuing of these PCNs. I will highlight my track record as a resident of having permits over the years and how on this occasion, I was abroad and did not receive the email
2. The vehicle should have been removed much sooner (with further emphasis based on the reply above). The manner in which the PCNs were applied lacked the empathy and fairness that should have been exercised by the council
3. No other information or written paperwork received at the impound for how to make representations
Does this sound good? Anything I have missed?
-
Thanks for the response
I have checked my email and nothing is there.
I checked with her and she said nothing else was given paperwork wise. She was verbally told that I would need to appeal the PCNs, and the print out for the list of them (in the original post) was given. So as a recap, she was given the document that lists out all of the PCNs, the PCN receipt itself that triggered the removal and the vehicle removal receipt. Does this count?
Do you have a link for that policy excerpt?
I have been a resident here for ~five years but got my car in 2022. Since then, I have had 3 permits (13/05/2022 - 1 year, 02/05/2023 - 6 months, 25/10/2023 - 6 months).
-
The persistent evaders guidance is nothing to do with your case unless Mr Anderson can explain.
Permit renewal: Haringey says:
You’ll get an email 5 weeks before your permit ends asking you to renew your permit.
Check your email inbox and spam/junk folder.
They gave you enough days before issuing the first PCN to get out of the code 19.
You must double check with your sister what she was given at the pound as:
The vehicle will already have been issued a PCN that sets out the grounds on which representations can be made. However, the Secretary of State recommends that the notice about representations against the immobilisation or removal also gives full particulars of the grounds, procedure and time limit for representations.
Haringey policy from 2015 says:
(https://i.ibb.co/YygjkJz/Screenshot-2024-07-28-at-00-02-59.png)
So they could have removed a lot sooner instead of racking up PCNs - the storage charge is cheaper than a PCN so there is the angle of unfairness both in cash and in the number of PCNs.
How long have you been a resident and what is your record with permits?
-
Thank you for the response. This is quite interesting.
I did not know about this 'Persistent evaders' guideline. With this in mind, do you think I should build my case (representation against the Notice to Owner) on this premise?
At the impound, they mentioned to my sister that I would need to appeal the PCNs, but did not provide any additional documents. If they should have provided documents related to representations info, then I can also challenge the pound PCN as you've mentioned too.
EDIT: So I've given the guidance a read and it doesn't seem like this negates or voids the previous PCNs. Rather, it seems to stipulate that to release the vehicle, I am only obliged to pay the PCN that triggered the removal.
In that case, I'm not sure if I have any grounds here?
-
Thanks.
Your case involves virtually every piece of legislation and statutory guidance which applies to parking, plus the council's public law duty to act fairly.
IMO, your car was removed pursuant to statutory guidance which needs to be examined: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
Most councils have 'policies', but whether these 'have regard to' the guidance is frequently fertile ground for examination. Failure to have regard to the guidance is a 'procedural impropriety'.
As far as I can tell, your sister was charged the correct sum for recovering your car i.e. the removal fee, the discounted penalty but no storage charges. The authority may not recover any other penalties, only that related to the PCN which was the trigger for removal.
The guidance's reference to Persistent Evaders is reproduced below:
Persistent evaders
Some vehicle owners contravene parking regulations deliberately and often and fail to settle the debts they incur.
A vehicle owner can be classed as a ‘persistent evader’ if there are 3 or more recorded contraventions for the vehicle and the penalties for these have not been paid, represented against or appealed against within the statutory time limits, or their representations and appeals have been rejected but they have still not paid.
Usually, this is because the vehicle keeper is not registered, or is not correctly registered, on the DVLA database, and the owner is confident that they can avoid paying any penalty charges. Where a vehicle appears to be registered in the UK, but the identity and address are not registered, or are not correctly registered on the DVLA database, authorities should consider making the information available to the police who can, if appropriate, investigate any criminal offence.
When parked in contravention, a persistent evader’s vehicle should be subject to the strongest possible enforcement following the issue of the PCN and confirmation of persistent evader status. This is likely to involve immobilisation or removal.
The benefit of removal is that it requires proof of ownership and a registered address before the release of the vehicle, whereas immobilisation prevents law-abiding motorists from using valuable kerb space.
The TMA and regulations made under it prohibit an enforcement authority from immobilisation or removing the vehicle until at least 15 minutes [footnote 28] have elapsed following the issue of a penalty charge notice.
Currently, under the TMA regulations an authority can only obtain payment for the PCN of the contravention for which the vehicle is immobilised or removed and not any other outstanding PCNs.
The above gives plenty of meat to get your teeth into.
But if the authority didn't provide the representations info at the pound (this relates to the RTRA and Removal and Disposal regs) then this should deal with the last PCN and tow charge.
-
Nope, just this and the PCN copy. My sister was told that I would need to either pay or appeal the rest of the PCNs.
-
Did you not receive a sheet with guidance on next steps?
-
Thanks for your response.
I've had a look back through the documents and it was an additional PCN that was issued on 31/05. That was the pound PCN.
This was given along with the release document (single-sided) which I've attached below.
The PCN number is ZN12536367 and the amount paid to release the vehicle was £200. They required this PCN to be paid too which was £65, so in total £265 was paid.
Pound PCN
(https://i.imgur.com/VsesRMZ.jpeg)
Release Document
(https://i.imgur.com/qe8X6G4.jpeg)
-
Let's go back to the pound pl.
Where are the docs given to your sister at the pound? We must see these pl, they're essential.
We must know the PCN attributable to the removal and see this PCN; the amount paid to secure the vehicle's release; the 'representations paperwork'.
Do not make reps until these details have been sorted pl.
-
Thank you for the response
My permit expired on 25/04/2024. It seems as though the first PCN was applied on May 7th.
Do you have a link for where they mention 7 to tow? I looked up what you said about Code 19 and guessing it was from here (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions). It says: "Code 19 - Parked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone with an invalid virtual permit or displaying an invalid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket, or after the expiry of paid for time".
Is my permit classed as 'out of date'? It's unclear as to what that refers to exactly.
Hmm, I'm not sure which PCN is the pound one. I would've assumed it's the last one but that has the same code as the earlier ones. I can enquire about this?
They typically send me an email reminder but I did not receive one. On the website here (https://new.haringey.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/residents/CPZ/apply) it says that I should receive one 5 weeks before expiry.
Okay that's good to know. I will appeal the NTOs and include some bits you mentioned about the towing happening much later, the lack of conformity to London Councils guidance and also the harshness of this given I am a resident.
-
What date did the permit expire.
Haringey's enforcement policy is not encouraging but they should have impounded well before 13 PCNs (they mention 7 as a reason to tow) and some could perhaps have been lower level code 19s if they conform to London Councils guidance.
NTOs are the second, formal stage to make representations to the council and apply to all windscreen PCNs except the one that resulted in the tow to the pound, where only a formal second stage rep can be made.
Which PCN is the pound PCN.
You must make reps against the NTOs (or pay) - otherwise you lose the tribunal appeal and you don't want £195 charge certificates. You have nothing to lose by sticking to deadlines and they may reoffer the £65 discount so you can take stock.
What have you previously received about permit renewal - have they promised reminders?
Penalising a resident to this extent is a factor.
-
My permit expired whilst I was abroad and I have received 13 PCNs for code 12 & 16 (parking in a resident bay without a valid permit). After appealing, I have now received 4 Notice to Owner forms (with more coming in the post I assume).
I was abroad for a few months for work, and my permit expired while I was away. My resident permit was valid before I left. I did not receive any email notification to remind me of the upcoming renewal required. During my time away, I had asked my sister to periodically switch on the car (every few weeks) so that the battery would not die.
One day, upon arrival, she noticed the car was not there and later discovered after speaking to a neighbour that it had been taken to an impound. She spoke to the impound on my behalf and was told that the car was taken away after receiving 13 consecutive PCNs. I find it quite abhorrent that each one was applied more or less one day after another (Appendix 1.1). There was no empathy or attempt to reach me about this.
I asked her to liaise with the impound to get the car. They had misinformed her about what documentation to bring (given I was on holiday) in order to collect the car. As a result, she called me several times and we had to go back and forth to get the right documents. They highlighted that there were 13 PCNs issued on the car before it was taken away. She paid the release fee and was able to take the car away.
While abroad, I individually appealed each PCN. Haringey did not honour the 30-day response time and took approximately 40 days to get back to me. They rejected each one (Appendix 1.2) with the same reason that the car did not have a valid permit, despite my clear explanation that I did not receive a permit expiry notification email. Also, it seems as though not all the PCNs are on the car. Either they have been blown away or removed..
I have a good track record of renewing my permits and prior to this have had three successful valid permits over the years. I am not sure what to do here. Quite honestly, if this were one or two tickets, I'd be happy to pay. But the amount of 13 PCNs is just too expensive, especially in this cost of living crisis. I was going to appeal these collectively online to the Tribunal and then, if required, attend court and represent myself.
My questions are:
- I am confused about the challenge process. On the back of one of the Notice to Owner letters, it says I can make a representation against this Notice to Owner. They provided an additional form for this (Appendix 1.3). Does this mean I have another opportunity to challenge this with the council before making an appeal via the London Tribunals?
- Is this the right move? While I understand that there is an omission on my part, I did not receive any expiry notification email, no letter in the post, and there is little clarification about their process. Why did they wait until 13 PCNs before deciding to take away the car, and not any less or more?
- In the rejection letters, it's clear that some physical PCNs are missing. I am assuming they were blown away or potentially removed. Not sure if this counts for anything?
Appendix:
1. List of PCNs & Dates for each
ZN12411827
ZN12411612
ZN12413039
ZN12355191
ZN12354734
ZN12354552
ZN12354417
ZN12354326
ZN12354086
ZN1235398A
ZN12266976
ZN12212900
ZN1212851A
(https://i.imgur.com/f1uETQF.png)
1.2. Appeal rejection (there are 13, but all have the same text and similar image) - Page 1 & 2
(https://i.imgur.com/YjUTLI2.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rqauFUp.png)
1.3. Notice to Owner letter & included appeal form (received 4 so far, later than 30 days, more I guess on the way) - Page 1, 2, 3, 4
(https://i.imgur.com/4yf3nuj.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/rS3QEaf.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5Ea0AAD.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KM1z44A.jpeg)